Search

In aiming for better access to climate change information and for providing climate service, it is important to obtain reliable high-resolution temperature simulations. Systematic comparisons are still deficient between statistical and dynamic downscaling techniques because of their inherent unavoidable uncertainties. In this paper, 20 global climate models (GCMs) and one regional climate model [Providing Regional Climates to Impact Studies (PRECIS)] are employed to evaluate their capabilities in reproducing average trends of mean temperature (Tm), maximum temperature (Tmax), minimum temperature (Tmin), diurnal temperature range (DTR), and extreme events represented by frost days (FD) and heat-wave days (HD) across China. It is shown generally that bias of temperatures from GCMs relative to observations is over ±1°C across more than one-half of mainland China. PRECIS demonstrates better representation of temperatures (except for HD) relative to GCMs. There is relatively better performance in Huanghuai, Jianghuai, Jianghan, south Yangzi River, and South China, whereas estimation is not as good in Xinjiang, the eastern part of northwest China, and the Tibetan Plateau. Bias-correction spatial disaggregation is used to downscale GCMs outputs, and bias correction is applied for PRECIS outputs, which demonstrate better improvement to a bias within ±0.2°C for Tm, Tmax, Tmin, and DTR and ±2 days for FD and HD. Furthermore, such improvement is also verified by the evidence of increased spatial correlation coefficient and symmetrical uncertainty, decreased root-mean-square error, and lower standard deviation for reproductions. It is seen from comprehensive ranking metrics that different downscaled models show the most improvement across different climatic regions, implying that optional ensembles of models should be adopted to provide sufficient high-quality climate information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explored the projected changes in precipitation, maximum temperature (T max), and minimum temperature (T min) over the Yangtze River Basin (YRB) based on 23 Global climate models (GCMs) from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6). The Empirical Quantile Mapping (EQM) approach was firstly applied to correct the biases in the GCMs. Next, the future changes were investigated by analyzing the multi-model ensemble (MME) of the bias-corrected dataset during 2025–2044 (near-term), 2045–2064 (mid-term), and 2081–2100 (long-term) periods, with reference to the baseline period 1995–2014, under three integrated scenarios (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, and SSP5-8.5) of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). Results show that: (1) the biases in CMIP6 GCMs can be effectively corrected by EQM, and the MME performs better than individual models for each climatic variable. (2) Precipitation over the YRB from 2025 to 2100 is projected to increase at the rate of 9.66 mm/decade, 13.45 mm/decade, and 21.01 mm/decade under SSP1‐2.6, SSP2‐4.5, and SSP5‐8.5, respectively. In the long-term, the annual precipitation is projected to increase by 10.41%, 10.66% and 15.80%, under SSP1‐2.6, SSP2‐4.5 and SSP5‐8.5, respectively. (3) T max (T min) over the YRB is projected to increase by 0.09 (0.07) °C/decade, 0.29 (0.27) °C/decade, and 0.66 (0.64) °C/decade under SSP1‐2.6, SSP2‐4.5, and SSP5‐8.5, respectively. In the long-term, T max (T min) averaged over the YRB is projected to increase by 1.75 (1.50) °C, 2.72 (2.54) °C and 5.04 (4.85) °C under SSP1‐2.6, SSP2‐4.5 and SSP5‐8.5, respectively. (4) Uncertainties in the projected precipitation and temperature over the YRB were reduced based on MME. But further researches, such as selecting the superior models with respect to the regional climate of the YRB from the CMIP6 and using the ensemble methods that assign weight based on the performance of each model, are still needed to provide more reliable climate projections. • Projected changes were explored by 23 CMIP6 GCMs under the three SSP-RCP scenarios. • Biases in the GCMs were corrected by Empirical Quantile Mapping (EQM) method. • Multi-model ensemble (MME) was used to reduce the uncertainties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]