Abstract
AbstractGiven the mismatch between the large volume of data archived for the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) and limited personnel and computational resources for downscaling, only a small fraction of the CMIP6 archive can be downscaled. In this work, we develop an approach to robustly sample projected hydroclimate states in CMIP6 for downscaling to test whether the selection of a single initial condition (IC) ensemble member from each CMIP6 model is sufficient to span the range of modeled hydroclimate over the conterminous United States (CONUS) and CONUS sub-regions. We calculate the pattern-centered root mean square difference of IC ensemble member anomalies relative to each model’s historical climatology for shared socioeconomic pathway (SSP) projections over 30-year time periods and compare the ratio of inter-model to intra-model variability for this metric. Regardless of SSP, inter-model variability is generally much greater than intra-model variability at the scales of the CONUS as a whole, as well as for most CONUS sub-regions. However for some variables and scenarios, inter- and intra-model variability are similar at sub-CONUS scales, indicating that selecting a single IC ensemble member per model may be sufficient to sample the range of projected hydroclimate states in the 21st Century across CONUS, but for specific regions and variables, more careful selection of ensemble members may be necessary. Regionally-resolved Taylor diagrams identify where more IC ensemble member downscaling efforts should be focused if resources are available to do so. Our results suggest that, with parsimonious sampling, the requisite computational expense of downscaling temperature and precipitation fields over the CONUS for subsequent CMIP activities may increase only marginally despite the great increase in data volumes with each successive CMIP phase.
Funder
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference51 articles.
1. Abatzoglou JT, Brown TJ (2012) A comparison of statistical downscaling methods suited for wildfire applications. International Journal of Climatology 32(5):772–780
2. Andrews T, Gregory JM, Webb MJ (2015) The dependence of radiative forcing and feedback on evolving patterns of surface temperature change in climate models. Journal of Climate 28(4):1630–1648. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00545.1, journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/28/4/jcli-d-14-00545.1.xml
3. Arguez A, Vose RS (2011) The definition of the standard wmo climate normal: The key to deriving alternative climate normals. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 92(6):699–704. https://doi.org/10.1175/2010BAMS2955.1
4. Brekke L, Thrasher BL, Maurer EP, Pruitt T (2013) Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 climate projections: Release of downscaled cmip5 climate projections, comparison with preceding information, and summary of user needs. Prepared for: Users of the “Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 Climate and Hydrology Projections: Release of Downscaled CMIP5 Climate Projections” http://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled_cmip_projections/
5. Cinquini L, Crichton D, Mattmann C, Harney J, Shipman G, Wang F, Ananthakrishnan R, Miller N, Denvil S, Morgan M et al (2014) The earth system grid federation: An open infrastructure for access to distributed geospatial data. Future Generation Computer Systems 36:400–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2013.07.002
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献