Search

Climate classifications are useful to synthesize the physical state of the climate with a proxy that can be directly related to biota. However, they present a potential drawback, namely a strong sensitivity because of the use of hard thresholds (step functions). Thus, minor discrepancies in the base data produce large differences in the type of climate. However, such an a priori limitation is also a strength because such sensitivity can be used to better gauge model performance. Although previous attempts of classifying climates of the world using global climate model outputs were encouraging, the applicability of their classifications to impact studies has been limited by past model issues. Notwithstanding the persistence of certain imperfections and limitations in current models, the high‐quality physical simulations from phase six of the Coupled Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) has opened new possibilities in the field, thanks to their improved representation of atmospheric and oceanic physics. The purpose of this paper is twofold: to show that climate classifications from CMIP6 are sufficiently robust for use in impact studies, and to use those classifications for identifying error sources and potential issues that deserve further attention in models. Thus, 52 CMIP6 climate models were evaluated by using three climate classifications schemes, classical Köppen, extended‐Köppen, and modified Thornthwaite. We first assessed model ability to reproduce present climate types by comparing their outputs with observational data. Models performed best for the Köppen and extended‐Köppen classification methods (Cohen's kappa κ = 0.7), and had moderate scores for the Thornthwaite climate classification (κ = 0.4). By tracing back the observed biases, we were able to pinpoint the misrepresentation of dry climates as a major source of error. Another finding was that most models still had some difficulties in representing the seasonal variability of precipitation over several monsoonal regions, thereby yielding the wrong climate type there. Models were also evaluated for future climate. Substantial changes in climate types are projected in the SSP5‐8.5 scenario. These changes include a shrinkage of polar/frigid climates (22%) and an increase of dry climates (7%). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gridded precipitation datasets have been developed for data assimilation and evaluation tasks of weather and climate models and for climate analyses. Gridded data uncertainty evaluation is crucial to understand the limitations and feasibility. The development of high‐resolution daily gridded precipitation datasets is desirable, but several factors need to be considered, namely rain gauge station availability, their spatial distribution, and orographic and climate characteristics of a study area. Quality assessment of gridded datasets can present difficulties when the influence of these factors is not thoroughly analysed. The main objective of this study was a detailed validation of precipitation grids based on four factors, that is, station density used for grid construction, grid spatial resolution, station altitude, and climate type. To this end, 18 grids were built using six spatial resolutions (0.01°, 0.025°, 0.05°, 0.1°, 0.2° and 0.4°) and three station densities (25, 50 and 75% of all available stations). Results indicate larger differences among the grids as a function of analysed factors. Station density was found to be the main factor, whereas grid spatial resolution had minor importance. However, the latter factor becomes more relevant in areas with strong altitude gradients and when a high station density is available. In addition, weak and moderate precipitation is overestimated on daily grids, whereas heavy precipitation cells are less frequent, reducing data variability. On the contrary, monthly and annual aggregates present less deviation from the observed distribution than daily comparisons. These findings question the applicability of the daily grid datasets for validation studies and climate analysis on a grid cell level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]