scholarly journals Verification of ECMWF System 4 for seasonal hydrological forecasting in a northern climate

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (11) ◽  
pp. 5747-5762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Bazile ◽  
Marie-Amélie Boucher ◽  
Luc Perreault ◽  
Robert Leconte
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Initial Conditions ◽  
Meteorological Data ◽  
Lead Times ◽  
Seasonal Forecasts ◽  
Hydrological Forecasting ◽  
Northern Climate

Abstract. Hydropower production requires optimal dam and reservoir management to prevent flooding damage and avoid operation losses. In a northern climate, where spring freshet constitutes the main inflow volume, seasonal forecasts can help to establish a yearly strategy. Long-term hydrological forecasts often rely on past observations of streamflow or meteorological data. Another alternative is to use ensemble meteorological forecasts produced by climate models. In this paper, those produced by the ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Forecast) System 4 are examined and bias is characterized. Bias correction, through the linear scaling method, improves the performance of the raw ensemble meteorological forecasts in terms of continuous ranked probability score (CRPS). Then, three seasonal ensemble hydrological forecasting systems are compared: (1) the climatology of simulated streamflow, (2) the ensemble hydrological forecasts based on climatology (ESP) and (3) the hydrological forecasts based on bias-corrected ensemble meteorological forecasts from System 4 (corr-DSP). Simulated streamflow computed using observed meteorological data is used as benchmark. Accounting for initial conditions is valuable even for long-term forecasts. ESP and corr-DSP both outperform the climatology of simulated streamflow for lead times from 1 to 5 months depending on the season and watershed. Integrating information about future meteorological conditions also improves monthly volume forecasts. For the 1-month lead time, a gain exists for almost all watersheds during winter, summer and fall. However, volume forecasts performance for spring varies from one watershed to another. For most of them, the performance is close to the performance of ESP. For longer lead times, the CRPS skill score is mostly in favour of ESP, even if for many watersheds, ESP and corr-DSP have comparable skill. Corr-DSP appears quite reliable but, in some cases, under-dispersion or bias is observed. A more complex bias-correction method should be further investigated to remedy this weakness and take more advantage of the ensemble forecasts produced by the climate model. Overall, in this study, bias-corrected ensemble meteorological forecasts appear to be an interesting source of information for hydrological forecasting for lead times up to 1 month. They could also complement ESP for longer lead times.

scholarly journals Verification of ECMWF System4 for seasonal hydrological forecasting in a northern climate

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Bazile ◽  
Marie-Amélie Boucher ◽  
Luc Perreault ◽  
Robert Leconte
Keyword(s):  
Climate Models ◽  
Initial Conditions ◽  
Meteorological Data ◽  
Skill Score ◽  
Lead Times ◽  
Seasonal Forecasts ◽  
Hydro Power ◽  
Hydrological Forecasting ◽  
Northern Climate

Abstract. Hydro-power production requires optimal dam management. In a northern climate, where spring freshet constitutes the main inflow volume, seasonal forecasts can help to establish a yearly strategy. Long-term hydrological forecasts often rely on past observations of streamflow or meteorological data. Another alternative is to use ensemble meteorological forecasts produced by climate models. In this paper, those produced by the ECMWF (European Center for Medium-Range Forecast)'s System 4 are examined and bias is characterized. Bias correction, through the linear scaling method, improves the performance of the raw ensemble meteorological forecasts in terms of Continuous Ranked Probability Score. Then, three seasonal ensemble hydrological forecasting systems are compared: 1) the climatology of simulated streamflow, 2) the ensemble hydrological forecasts based on climatology (ESP) and 3) the hydrological forecasts based on bias-corrected ensemble meteorological fore- casts from System4 (corr-DSP). Simulated streamflows are used as observations. Accounting for initial conditions is valuable even for long-term forecasts. ESP and corr-DSP both outperform the climatology of simulated streamflow for lead-times from 1-month to 5-month depending on the season and watershed. Corr-DSP appears quite reliable but sometimes suffer from under- dispersion. Integrating information about future meteorological conditions also improves monthly volume forecasts. For the 1-month lead-time, a gain exists for almost all watersheds during winter, summer and fall. However, volume forecasts per- formance for spring is close to the performance of ESP. For longer lead-times, results are mixed and the CRPS skill score is close to 0 in most cases. Bias-corrected ensemble meteorological forecasts appear to be an interesting source of information for hydrological forecasting.

scholarly journals Effects of climate model radiation, humidity and wind estimates on hydrological simulations

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Haddeland ◽  
J. Heinke ◽  
F. Voß ◽  
S. Eisner ◽  
C. Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Meteorological Data ◽  
Correction Method ◽  
Hydrological Models ◽  
Temperature And Precipitation ◽  
Effects Of Radiation ◽  
Precipitation And Temperature

Abstract. Due to biases in the output of climate models, a bias correction is often needed to make the output suitable for use in hydrological simulations. In most cases only the temperature and precipitation values are bias corrected. However, often there are also biases in other variables such as radiation, humidity and wind speed. In this study we tested to what extent it is also needed to bias correct these variables. Responses to radiation, humidity and wind estimates from two climate models for four large-scale hydrological models are analysed. For the period 1971–2000 these hydrological simulations are compared to simulations using meteorological data based on observations and reanalysis; i.e. the baseline simulation. In both forcing datasets originating from climate models precipitation and temperature are bias corrected to the baseline forcing dataset. Hence, it is only effects of radiation, humidity and wind estimates that are tested here. The direct use of climate model outputs result in substantial different evapotranspiration and runoff estimates, when compared to the baseline simulations. A simple bias correction method is implemented and tested by rerunning the hydrological models using bias corrected radiation, humidity and wind values. The results indicate that bias correction can successfully be used to match the baseline simulations. Finally, historical (1971–2000) and future (2071–2100) model simulations resulting from using bias corrected forcings are compared to the results using non-bias corrected forcings. The relative changes in simulated evapotranspiration and runoff are relatively similar for the bias corrected and non bias corrected hydrological projections, although the absolute evapotranspiration and runoff numbers are often very different. The simulated relative and absolute differences when using bias corrected and non bias corrected climate model radiation, humidity and wind values are, however, smaller than literature reported differences resulting from using bias corrected and non bias corrected climate model precipitation and temperature values.

scholarly journals Sources of Uncertainty in Future Projections of the Carbon Cycle

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (20) ◽  
pp. 7203-7213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan J. Hewitt ◽  
Ben B. B. Booth ◽  
Chris D. Jones ◽  
Eddy S. Robertson ◽  
Andy J. Wiltshire ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Initial Conditions ◽  
Carbon Fluxes ◽  
Global Ocean ◽  
Lead Times ◽  
Carbon Uptake ◽  
The North ◽  
Ocean Carbon

Abstract The inclusion of carbon cycle processes within CMIP5 Earth system models provides the opportunity to explore the relative importance of differences in scenario and climate model representation to future land and ocean carbon fluxes. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) approach was used to quantify the variability owing to differences between scenarios and between climate models at different lead times. For global ocean carbon fluxes, the variance attributed to differences between representative concentration pathway scenarios exceeds the variance attributed to differences between climate models by around 2025, completely dominating by 2100. This contrasts with global land carbon fluxes, where the variance attributed to differences between climate models continues to dominate beyond 2100. This suggests that modeled processes that determine ocean fluxes are currently better constrained than those of land fluxes; thus, one can be more confident in linking different future socioeconomic pathways to consequences of ocean carbon uptake than for land carbon uptake. The contribution of internal variance is negligible for ocean fluxes and small for land fluxes, indicating that there is little dependence on the initial conditions. The apparent agreement in atmosphere–ocean carbon fluxes, globally, masks strong climate model differences at a regional level. The North Atlantic and Southern Ocean are key regions, where differences in modeled processes represent an important source of variability in projected regional fluxes.

scholarly journals Effects of climate model radiation, humidity and wind estimates on hydrological simulations

2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 7919-7945 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Haddeland ◽  
J. Heinke ◽  
F. Voß ◽  
S. Eisner ◽  
C. Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Meteorological Data ◽  
Correction Method ◽  
Hydrological Models ◽  
Temperature And Precipitation ◽  
Effects Of Radiation ◽  
Precipitation And Temperature

Abstract. Due to biases in the output of climate models, a bias correction is often needed to make the output suitable for use in hydrological simulations. In most cases only the temperature and precipitation values are bias corrected. However, often there are also biases in other variables such as radiation, humidity and wind speed. In this study we tested to what extent it is also needed to bias correct these variables. Responses to radiation, humidity and wind estimates from two climate models for four large-scale hydrological models are analysed. For the period 1971–2000 these hydrological simulations are compared to simulations using meteorological data based on observations and reanalysis; i.e. the baseline simulation. In both forcing datasets originating from climate models precipitation and temperature are bias corrected to the baseline forcing dataset. Hence, it is only effects of radiation, humidity and wind estimates that are tested here. The direct use of climate model outputs result in substantial different evapotranspiration and runoff estimates, when compared to the baseline simulations. A simple bias correction method is implemented and tested by rerunning the hydrological models using bias corrected radiation, humidity and wind values. The results indicate that bias correction can successfully be used to match the baseline simulations. Finally, historical (1971–2000) and future (2071–2100) model simulations resulting from using bias corrected forcings are compared to the results using non-bias corrected forcings. The relative changes in simulated evapotranspiration and runoff are relatively similar for the bias corrected and non bias corrected hydrological projections, although the absolute evapotranspiration and runoff numbers are often very different. The simulated relative and absolute differences when using bias corrected and non bias corrected climate model radiation, humidity and wind values are, however, smaller than literature reported differences resulting from using bias corrected and non bias corrected climate model precipitation and temperature values.

scholarly journals Projecting Health Impacts of Future Temperature: A Comparison of Quantile-Mapping Bias-Correction Methods

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1992
Author(s):  
Weijia Qian ◽  
Howard H. Chang
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Warm Season ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Regional Climate Models ◽  
Health Impact ◽  
Quantile Mapping ◽  
Ed Visits

Health impact assessments of future environmental exposures are routinely conducted to quantify population burdens associated with the changing climate. It is well-recognized that simulations from climate models need to be bias-corrected against observations to estimate future exposures. Quantile mapping (QM) is a technique that has gained popularity in climate science because of its focus on bias-correcting the entire exposure distribution. Even though improved bias-correction at the extreme tails of exposure may be particularly important for estimating health burdens, the application of QM in health impact projection has been limited. In this paper we describe and apply five QM methods to estimate excess emergency department (ED) visits due to projected changes in warm-season minimum temperature in Atlanta, USA. We utilized temperature projections from an ensemble of regional climate models in the North American-Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (NA-CORDEX). Across QM methods, we estimated consistent increase in ED visits across climate model ensemble under RCP 8.5 during the period 2050 to 2099. We found that QM methods can significantly reduce between-model variation in health impact projections (50–70% decreases in between-model standard deviation). Particularly, the quantile delta mapping approach had the largest reduction and is recommended also because of its ability to preserve model-projected absolute temporal changes in quantiles.

scholarly journals The Model Intercomparison Project on the climatic response to Volcanic forcing (VolMIP): Experimental design and forcing input data

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davide Zanchettin ◽  
Myriam Khodri ◽  
Claudia Timmreck ◽  
Matthew Toohey ◽  
Anja Schmidt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Initial Conditions ◽  
Volcanic Eruptions ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol ◽  
Aerosol Layer ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Climatic Response ◽  
Volcanic Forcing ◽  
Intercomparison Project

Abstract. The enhancement of the stratospheric aerosol layer by volcanic eruptions induces a complex set of responses causing global and regional climate effects on a broad range of timescales. Uncertainties exist regarding the climatic response to strong volcanic forcing identified in coupled climate simulations that contributed to the fifth phase of the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). In order to better understand the sources of these model diversities, the model intercomparison project on the climate response to volcanic forcing (VolMIP) has defined a coordinated set of idealized volcanic perturbation experiments to be carried out in alignment with the CMIP6 protocol. VolMIP provides a common stratospheric aerosol dataset for each experiment to eliminate differences in the applied volcanic forcing, and defines a set of initial conditions to determine how internal climate variability contributes to determining the response. VolMIP will assess to what extent volcanically-forced responses of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system are robustly simulated by state-of-the-art coupled climate models and identify the causes that limit robust simulated behavior, especially differences in the treatment of physical processes. This paper illustrates the design of the idealized volcanic perturbation experiments in the VolMIP protocol and describes the common aerosol forcing input datasets to be used.

scholarly journals The DeepMIP contribution to PMIP4: experimental design for model simulations of the EECO, PETM, and pre-PETM (version 1.0)

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 889-901 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Lunt ◽  
Matthew Huber ◽  
Eleni Anagnostou ◽  
Michiel L. J. Baatsen ◽  
Rodrigo Caballero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Design ◽  
Land Surface ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Initial Conditions ◽  
Geological Data ◽  
Time Model ◽  
Model Simulations ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Climate Model Simulations

Abstract. Past warm periods provide an opportunity to evaluate climate models under extreme forcing scenarios, in particular high ( >  800 ppmv) atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Although a post hoc intercomparison of Eocene ( ∼  50  Ma) climate model simulations and geological data has been carried out previously, models of past high-CO2 periods have never been evaluated in a consistent framework. Here, we present an experimental design for climate model simulations of three warm periods within the early Eocene and the latest Paleocene (the EECO, PETM, and pre-PETM). Together with the CMIP6 pre-industrial control and abrupt 4 ×  CO2 simulations, and additional sensitivity studies, these form the first phase of DeepMIP – the Deep-time Model Intercomparison Project, itself a group within the wider Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP). The experimental design specifies and provides guidance on boundary conditions associated with palaeogeography, greenhouse gases, astronomical configuration, solar constant, land surface processes, and aerosols. Initial conditions, simulation length, and output variables are also specified. Finally, we explain how the geological data sets, which will be used to evaluate the simulations, will be developed.

scholarly journals Interhemispheric differences of mesosphere/lower thermosphere winds and tides investigated from three whole atmosphere models and meteor radar observations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunter Stober ◽  
Ales Kuchar ◽  
Dimitry Pokhotelov ◽  
Huixin Liu ◽  
Han-Li Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Circulation ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Lower Thermosphere ◽  
Winter Season ◽  
General Circulation Models ◽  
Meteor Radar ◽  
Radar Observations ◽  
Seasonal Characteristics

Abstract. Long-term and continuous observations of mesospheric/lower thermospheric winds are rare, but they are important to investigate climatological changes at these altitudes on time scales of several years, covering a solar cycle and longer. Such long time series are a natural heritage of the mesosphere/lower thermosphere climate, and they are valuable to compare climate models or long term runs of general circulation models (GCMs). Here we present a climatological comparison of wind observations from six meteor radars at two conjugate latitudes to validate the corresponding mean winds and atmospheric diurnal and semidiurnal tides from three GCMs, namely Ground-to-Topside Model of Atmosphere and Ionosphere for Aeronomy (GAIA), Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Extension (Specified Dynamics) (WACCM-X(SD)) and Upper Atmosphere ICOsahedral Non-hydrostatic (UA-ICON) model. Our results indicate that there are interhemispheric differences in the seasonal characteristics of the diurnal and semidiurnal tide. There also are some differences in the mean wind climatologies of the models and the observations. Our results indicate that GAIA shows a reasonable agreement with the meteor radar observations during the winter season, whereas WACCM-X(SD) shows a better agreement with the radars for the hemispheric zonal summer wind reversal, which is more consistent with the meteor radar observations. The free running UA-ICON tends to show similar winds and tides compared to WACCM-X(SD).

scholarly journals Evaluating quantile-based bias adjustment methods for climate change scenarios

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabian Lehner ◽  
Imran Nadeem ◽  
Herbert Formayer
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Meteorological Data ◽  
Climate Change Signal ◽  
Historical Period ◽  
Climate Change Scenarios ◽  
Statistical Bias ◽  
Bias Adjustment ◽  
Direct Model

Abstract. Daily meteorological data such as temperature or precipitation from climate models is needed for many climate impact studies, e.g. in hydrology or agriculture but direct model output can contain large systematic errors. Thus, statistical bias adjustment is applied to correct climate model outputs. Here we review existing statistical bias adjustment methods and their shortcomings, and present a method which we call EQA (Empirical Quantile Adjustment), a development of the methods EDCDFm and PresRAT. We then test it in comparison to two existing methods using real and artificially created daily temperature and precipitation data for Austria. We compare the performance of the three methods in terms of the following demands: (1): The model data should match the climatological means of the observational data in the historical period. (2): The long-term climatological trends of means (climate change signal), either defined as difference or as ratio, should not be altered during bias adjustment, and (3): Even models with too few wet days (precipitation above 0.1 mm) should be corrected accurately, so that the wet day frequency is conserved. EQA fulfills (1) almost exactly and (2) at least for temperature. For precipitation, an additional correction included in EQA assures that the climate change signal is conserved, and for (3), we apply another additional algorithm to add precipitation days.

scholarly journals Back to the Future: Using Long-Term Observational and Paleo-Proxy Reconstructions to Improve Model Projections of Antarctic Climate

Geosciences ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Bracegirdle ◽  
Florence Colleoni ◽  
Nerilie J. Abram ◽  
Nancy A. N. Bertler ◽  
Daniel A. Dixon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Ice Core ◽  
Global Climate Models ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
Past Performance ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Proxy Reconstructions

Quantitative estimates of future Antarctic climate change are derived from numerical global climate models. Evaluation of the reliability of climate model projections involves many lines of evidence on past performance combined with knowledge of the processes that need to be represented. Routine model evaluation is mainly based on the modern observational period, which started with the establishment of a network of Antarctic weather stations in 1957/58. This period is too short to evaluate many fundamental aspects of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean climate system, such as decadal-to-century time-scale climate variability and trends. To help address this gap, we present a new evaluation of potential ways in which long-term observational and paleo-proxy reconstructions may be used, with a particular focus on improving projections. A wide range of data sources and time periods is included, ranging from ship observations of the early 20th century to ice core records spanning hundreds to hundreds of thousands of years to sediment records dating back 34 million years. We conclude that paleo-proxy records and long-term observational datasets are an underused resource in terms of strategies for improving Antarctic climate projections for the 21st century and beyond. We identify priorities and suggest next steps to addressing this.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document