Choice of reference climate conditions matters in impact studies: Case of bias-corrected CORDEX data set

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F60460709%3A41320%2F19%3AN0000062" target="_blank" >RIV/60460709:41320/19:N0000062 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.5930" target="_blank" >https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.5930</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joc.5930" target="_blank" >10.1002/joc.5930</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Choice of reference climate conditions matters in impact studies: Case of bias-corrected CORDEX data set

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Climate models have provided driving data for impact studies for decades. However, the uncertainties related to the use of such data have typically not been sufficiently considered. We investigate how CORDEX climate simulations, which were corrected for bias based on MESAN reanalysis data for the period of 1989-2010, match the gridded observational data set E-OBS. Furthermore, we investigate whether the bias-corrected simulations contain significant residual bias (RB), which we defined as the bias exceeding the range of the observational uncertainty (U-obs) that emerges from differences between the two data sets MESAN and E-OBS. Because the reference period selected in climate change impact studies often differs from the period used for bias correction, we further investigated whether the RB and other performance metrics of the periods 1989-2010 and 1961-1990 differ. We conducted this assessment for whole Europe and for biogeographical zones.Most of the used performance metrics show a good match of the simulations with MESAN in the period of 1989-2010. The comparison against E-OBS yields worse results, indicating a significant difference between the two observational data sets. Minor bias exceeding the range of U-obs (RB) occurred over large land areas of Europe in this period. Based on the analysis conducted for the period of 1961-1990, the RB is several times larger than that of the period of 1989-2010, the other metrics also show worse performances.Our findings imply that both the selection of the reference climate data set and reference period warrant greater attention in impact studies. In particular, we recommend researchers to use a bias correction period as reference period in their studies. Alternatively, a new bias correction should be applied if any different period is to be used as a reference.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Choice of reference climate conditions matters in impact studies: Case of bias-corrected CORDEX data set

Popis výsledku anglicky

Climate models have provided driving data for impact studies for decades. However, the uncertainties related to the use of such data have typically not been sufficiently considered. We investigate how CORDEX climate simulations, which were corrected for bias based on MESAN reanalysis data for the period of 1989-2010, match the gridded observational data set E-OBS. Furthermore, we investigate whether the bias-corrected simulations contain significant residual bias (RB), which we defined as the bias exceeding the range of the observational uncertainty (U-obs) that emerges from differences between the two data sets MESAN and E-OBS. Because the reference period selected in climate change impact studies often differs from the period used for bias correction, we further investigated whether the RB and other performance metrics of the periods 1989-2010 and 1961-1990 differ. We conducted this assessment for whole Europe and for biogeographical zones.Most of the used performance metrics show a good match of the simulations with MESAN in the period of 1989-2010. The comparison against E-OBS yields worse results, indicating a significant difference between the two observational data sets. Minor bias exceeding the range of U-obs (RB) occurred over large land areas of Europe in this period. Based on the analysis conducted for the period of 1961-1990, the RB is several times larger than that of the period of 1989-2010, the other metrics also show worse performances.Our findings imply that both the selection of the reference climate data set and reference period warrant greater attention in impact studies. In particular, we recommend researchers to use a bias correction period as reference period in their studies. Alternatively, a new bias correction should be applied if any different period is to be used as a reference.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

10509 - Meteorology and atmospheric sciences

Projekt

Výsledek vznikl pri realizaci vícero projektů. Více informací v záložce Projekty.

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2019

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY

ISSN

1097-0088

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

39

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

4

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

19

Strana od-do

2022-2040

Kód UT WoS článku

000465456400014

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85059001668