Abstract Efforts to diagnose the risks of a changing climate often rely on downscaled and bias-corrected climate information, making it important to understand the uncertainties and potential biases of this approach. Here, we perform a variance decomposition to partition uncertainty in global climate projections and quantify the relative importance of downscaling and bias-correction. We analyze simple climate metrics such as annual temperature and precipitation averages, as well as several indices of climate extremes. We find that downscaling and bias-correction often contribute substantial uncertainty to local decision-relevant climate outcomes, though our results are strongly heterogeneous across space, time, and climate metrics. Our results can provide guidance to impact modelers and decision-makers regarding the uncertainties associated with downscaling and bias-correction when performing local-scale analyses, as neglecting to account for these uncertainties may risk overconfidence relative to the full range of possible climate futures. 

Downscaling and bias-correction contribute considerable uncertainty to local climate projections in CMIP6

For each assessment cycle of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), researchers in the life sciences are called upon to provide evidence to policymakers planning for a changing future. This research increasingly relies on highly technical and complex outputs from climate models. The strengths and weaknesses of these data may not be fully appreciated beyond the climate modelling community; therefore, uninformed use of raw or preprocessed climate data could lead to overconfident or spurious conclusions. We provide an accessible introduction to climate model outputs that is intended to empower the life science community to robustly address questions about human and natural systems in a changing world. 

Demystifying global climate models for use in the life sciences.

The Eastern Corn Belt Region (ECBR) is an important agricultural sector for the U.S. This study analyzes the climate extremes over the contemporary (1980–2018) and future (2036–2099) periods over the ECBR. We evaluated the performance of 32 downscaled models from the U.S. Global Change Research Program's Localized Constructed Analogs (LOCA) of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) to simulate extreme temperature and precipitation indices. The LOCA downscaled models were evaluated for the recent past against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)-supported gridded observational dataset DAYMET. Results reveal key trends throughout the region that are consistent with previous studies, including significant increases in extreme minimum temperatures, reduction of cold nights, increase of warm nights, and decreases in diurnal temperature ranges. Much of the region demonstrates extreme warming trends in the coldest night of the year (more than 5 °C) and an increase in the heaviest precipitation events over 1980–2018. An optimal model ensemble (OME) was constructed using a Kling-Gupta Efficiency and Bhattacharyya coefficient evaluation to construct a comprehensive ranking procedure. Having outperformed a standard multi-model ensemble approach, the OME was used to evaluate the future changes of extreme climate indices under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios. Though the OME showed consistently strong warming throughout the ECBR, variability among the optimal models and across watersheds is quite significant, especially for precipitation indices. Thus, constraining the uncertainty in future climate models, specifically as it relates to agriculture decisions that support climate-resilience, remains a challenge. 

Climate extremes and their impacts on agriculture across the Eastern Corn Belt Region of the U.S.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102898

Projecting U.S. forest management, market, and carbon sequestration responses to a high-impact climate scenario

This study evaluates the effect of the statistical bias correction techniques of distribution mapping and linear scaling on climate change signals and extreme rainfall indices under different climate change scenarios in the Jemma sub-basin of the Upper Blue Nile Basin. The mean, cumulative distribution function (CDF), mean absolute error (MAE), probability of wet days (Prwet (%)), and 90th percentile (X90 (mm)) of observed rainfall and the regional climate model (RCM) simulations of rainfall with and without statistical bias correction were compared with the historical climate (1981–2005). For future (2071–2100) climate scenarios, the change in climate signal and extreme rainfall indices in the RCM simulations with and without bias correction were also evaluated using different statistical metrics. The result showed that the statistical bias correction techniques effectively adjusted the mean annual and monthly RCM simulations of rainfall to the observed rainfall. However, distribution mapping is effective and better than linear scaling for adjusting the probability of wet days and the 90th percentile of RCM simulations. In future climate scenarios, RCM simulations showed an increase in rainfall. However, the statistically bias-adjusted RCM outputs revealed a decrease in rainfall, which indicated that the statistical bias correction techniques triggered a change in climate signal. Statistical bias correction methods also result in changes in the extreme rainfall indices, such as frequency of wet days (R1mm), number of heavy precipitation days (R10mm), number of very heavy rainfall days (R20mm), and other intensity and frequency indices.

/pdf/evaluating-the-impact-of-statistical-bias-correction-on-g11776ue.pdf

Evaluating the Impact of Statistical Bias Correction on Climate Change Signal and Extreme Indices in the Jemma Sub-Basin of Blue Nile Basin

Efforts to understand and quantify how a changing climate can impact agriculture often rely on bias-corrected and downscaled climate information, making it important to quantify potential biases of this approach. Here, we use a multi-model ensemble of statistically bias-corrected and downscaled climate models, as well as the corresponding parent models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), to drive a statistical panel model of U.S. maize yields that incorporates season-wide measures of temperature and precipitation. We analyze uncertainty in annual yield hindcasts, finding that the CMIP5 models considerably overestimate historical yield variability while the bias-corrected and downscaled versions underestimate the largest weather-induced yield declines. We also find large differences in projected yields and other decision-relevant metrics throughout this century, leaving stakeholders with modeling choices that require navigating trade-offs in resolution, historical accuracy, and projection confidence. Historical annual maize yields in the U.S. are overestimated by CMIP5 models and underestimated by bias-corrected and downscaled models due to differences in temperature and precipitation hindcasts, according to a multi-model ensemble comparison.

/pdf/statistically-bias-corrected-and-downscaled-climate-models-u0xfe2hewo.pdf

Statistically bias-corrected and downscaled climate models underestimate the adverse effects of extreme heat on U.S. maize yields


 Efforts to understand and quantify how a changing climate can impact agriculture often rely on bias-corrected and downscaled climate information, making it important to quantify potential biases of this approach. Previous studies typically focus their uncertainty analyses on climatic variables and are silent on how these uncertainties propagate into human systems through their subsequent incorporation into econometric models. Here, we use a multi-model ensemble of statistically downscaled and bias-corrected climate models, as well as the corresponding CMIP5 parent models, to analyze uncertainty surrounding annual maize yield variability in the United States. We find that the CMIP5 models considerably overestimate historical yield variability while the bias-corrected and downscaled versions underestimate the largest historically observed yield shocks. We also find large differences in projected yields and other decision-relevant metrics throughout this century, leaving stakeholders with modeling choices that require navigating trade-offs in resolution, historical accuracy, and projection confidence.

/pdf/statistically-bias-corrected-and-downscaled-climate-models-2yn5cuiqw0.pdf

Statistically bias-corrected and downscaled climate models underestimate the severity of U.S. maize yield shocks

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

D. C. Lafferty

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Statistically bias-corrected and downscaled climate models underestimate the adverse effects of extreme heat on U.S. maize yields

Statistically bias-corrected and downscaled climate models underestimate the severity of U.S. maize yield shocks