Search

Climate model simulations typically exhibit a bias, which can be corrected using statistical approaches. In this study, a geostatistical approach for bias correction of daily precipitation at ungauged locations is presented. The method utilizes a double quantile mapping with dry day correction for future periods. The transfer function of the bias correction for the ungauged locations is established using distribution functions estimated by ordinary kriging with anisotropic variograms. The methodology was applied to the daily precipitation simulations of the entire CORDEX‐Africa ensemble for a study region located in the West African Sudanian Savanna. This ensemble consists of 23 regional climate models (RCM) that were run for three different future scenarios (RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, and RCP 8.5). The evaluation of the approach for a historical 50‐year period (1950–2005) showed that the method can reduce the inherent strong precipitation bias of RCM simulations, thereby reproducing the main climatological features of the observed data. Moreover, the bias correction technique preserves the climate change signal of the uncorrected RCM simulations. However, the ensemble spread is increased due to an overestimation of the rainfall probability of uncorrected RCM simulations. The application of the bias correction method to the future period (2006–2100) revealed that annual precipitation increases for most models in the near (2020–2049) and far future (2070–2099) with a mean increase of up to 165mm⋅a−1 (18%). An analysis of the monthly and daily time series showed a slightly delayed onset and intensification of the rainy season. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Bias correction (BC) methods can better represent the spatial patterns of the climate and derived agricultural impacts. • Uncertainties from BC can be twice as high compared to the uncertainties from the GCM-RCM combinations. • Climate change impacts studies (CCIS) without BC or relying on any single BC approach should be interpreted with great caution. • In CCIS, a BC ensemble is suggested for generating climate projections following a super-ensemble probabilistic assessment. Many open questions and unresolved issues surround the topic of bias correction (BC) in climate change impact studies (CCIS). One question relates to the contribution of downscaling of climate change scenarios on the uncertainties in results obtained using impact models for agriculture. In particular, for large area or regional agricultural impact assessments, the question of bias correction is of high relevance. Relatively few studies exist looking at the quantification of the impacts of BC methods in general circulation model (GCM) and regional climate model (RCM) data on results of such impact studies. Here, we quantify the impact of different BC methods on temperature (T) and precipitation (P) from different CORDEX GCM-RCM combinations, and how the debiased T&P signal may propagate through agricultural impact models. Specifically, we estimate the impact of BC on (i) an empirical P- and fuzzy rule-based algorithm to estimate the crop planting date, and (ii) a mechanistic T&P-based approach to quantify the crop suitability index (CSI) for the main staple crops in West Africa (i.e. groundnut, maize, pearl millet, sorghum). Both approaches serve as a proxy for more complex process-based ecophysiological crop models. Depending on the choice of the BC method, the uncertainties in the assessment of the CSI can be more than twice as high compared to the uncertainties from the GCM-RCM model selection. Comparing the estimated CSI values with observed harvest area, it is found that BC generally improves the performance for models with low hit rates (< 30 –35%), but decreases the performance for models with relatively high hit rates (> 35 %). Such consequences can also be expected for process-based crop models, which are developed to operate on field-scale but are driven by coarser scale RCMs. It is concluded that such agriculturally oriented climate impact models as investigated here should be interpreted with great caution if applied without BC or relying on a single BC approach only. Rather, we suggest to include different BC approaches in the generation of climate projections for CCIS and quantify their uncertainties following a super-ensemble probabilistic assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]