Comparison of empirical statistical methods for downscaling daily climate projections from CMIP5 GCMs: a case study of the Huai River Basin, China

Abstract

Empirical statistical downscaling methods are becoming increasingly popular in climate change impact assessments that require downscaling multi‐global climate model (GCM) projections. Here, empirical statistical downscaling methods are classified based on calibration strategies [bias correction (BC) and change factor (CF)] and statistical transformations (mean based, variance based, quantile mapping, quantile correcting and transfer function methods). Ten combinations of calibration strategies and transformation methods are used to represent a range of empirical statistical downscaling methods. To test the performance of these methods in downscaling daily precipitation and temperature, an inter‐model cross‐validation is carried out using an ensemble of 16 GCMs from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) dataset over the Huai River Basin in China. These downscaling methods are further applied to downscale the climate for the future period to assess the associated uncertainties. The results show that the CF‐based methods outperform the BC‐based methods in projecting the probability distribution of downscaled daily temperature, while both calibration strategies give comparable results in the case of precipitation. With the CF calibration strategy, simply adding (for temperature) or multiplying (for precipitation) the mean CF is sufficient to represent most of the relative changes projected by GCMs. The use of quantile‐based methods appears to be advantageous only at the tails of the distribution. More sophisticated BC methods are needed to remove the biases in the higher‐order statistics of the GCM outputs. The two calibration strategies lead to fundamentally different temporal structures and spatial variability of the downscaled climatic variables. The BC‐based methods produce larger uncertainty bands of inter‐annual variability than the CF‐based methods. For downscaled future precipitation, the uncertainty arising from the downscaling methods is comparable to the uncertainty arising from GCMs, while more uncertainty is introduced by calibration strategies than by statistical transformation methods.

Selection of CMIP5 GCM Ensemble for the Projection of Spatio-Temporal Changes in Precipitation and Temperature over the Niger Delta, Nigeria

“…RCP4.5 is an intermediate pathway scenario that shows a good agreement with the latest policy of lower greenhouse gas emissions by the global community, while RCP8.5 is the business-as-usual scenario, which is consistent with a future that has no change in climate policy to reduce emissions [51]. Therefore, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 were selected as these two scenarios can provide a possible complete range of impact.…”

Using multi‐model ensembles of CMIP5 global climate models to reproduce observed monthly rainfall and temperature with machine learning methods in Australia

“…GCM uncertainties and biases are the two major obstacles for realistic assessments of climate change impacts. Bias correction techniques including mean and/or variance‐based method, quantile mapping and transfer function are very popular and have been widely used to reduce model bias in climate modelling (Ines and Hansen, ; Wang et al ., ). However, bias correction is mainly able to correct some GCM systematic biases, but insufficient in correction of non‐stationary GCM biases and inter‐GCM uncertainties.…”

Bias nonstationarity of global climate model outputs: The role of internal climate variability and climate model sensitivity

“…Bias correction methods ranging from simple linear correction to complicated distribution mapping are proposed by deriving a correction function to remove bias in a historical period. This derived function is then used to correct future climate simulations based on a common assumption of invariable bias over time (Vrac et al ., ; Maraun et al ., ; Teutschbein and Seibert, ; Wang et al ., ).…”