Evaluating the utility of dynamical downscaling in agricultural impacts projections

Abstract

Interest in estimating the potential socioeconomic costs of climate change has led to the increasing use of dynamical downscalingnested modeling in which regional climate models (RCMs) are driven with general circulation model (GCM) output-to produce fine-spatial-scale climate projections for impacts assessments. We evaluate here whether this computationally intensive approach significantly alters projections of agricultural yield, one of the greatest concerns under climate change. Our results suggest that it does not. We simulate US maize yields under current and future CO 2 concentrations with the widely used Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer crop model, driven by a variety of climate inputs including two GCMs, each in turn downscaled by two RCMs. We find that no climate model output can reproduce yields driven by observed climate unless a bias correction is first applied. Once a bias correction is applied, GCM-and RCM-driven US maize yields are essentially indistinguishable in all scenarios (<10% discrepancy, equivalent to error from observations). Although RCMs correct some GCM biases related to fine-scale geographic features, errors in yield are dominated by broad-scale (100s of kilometers) GCM systematic errors that RCMs cannot compensate for. These results support previous suggestions that the benefits for impacts assessments of dynamically downscaling raw GCM output may not be sufficient to justify its computational demands. Progress on fidelity of yield projections may benefit more from continuing efforts to understand and minimize systematic error in underlying climate projections.agriculture | food security | NARCCAP | CORDEX

Evaluation of historical and future simulations of precipitation and temperature in central Africa from CMIP5 climate models

“…Any climate change assessment where the GCM outputs are used as input will inherit the biases in the subsequent outputs. Studies on climate change impacts on land surface hydrology and agriculture report that models forced with outputs directly from the GCMs or even regional climate models nested within GCMs result in unacceptably biased simulations, and therefore, the GCM (or regional model) outputs ought to be bias corrected [ Glotter et al , ; Salathé et al , ; Sulis et al , ; Wood et al , ]. Since the model outputs cannot be used directly, we apply bias correction that corrects all moments of the climate fields' statistical distribution at monthly scale.…”

Climate Changes and Their Impact on Agricultural Market Systems: Examples from Nepal

“…Despite these limitations, the WorldClim dataset is the best-developed dataset available for Nepal [20,42,43,53,54]. Moreover, a study by Glotter et al [55] showed that, once a correction is applied, the results of general circulation models and regional climate models are indistinguishable in all four scenarios. This suggests that, when developing impact assessments, the benefits that are generated by dynamically downscaling raw, general-circulation models may not be sufficient to justify the computational demand.…”

Transition Pathways to Sustainable Agricultural Water Management: A Review of Integrated Modeling Approaches

“…These results can highlight the potential need for conservation strategies in water-limited regions. Other researchers have used RCM output to drive crop simulations in central Asia (Bobojonov and Aw-Hassan 2014) and the Midwestern U.S. (Glotter et al 2014) to examine the agronomic response to changes in regional climate. An integrated modeling continuum.…”