Author:
Sharma Anurag,Swami Deepak,Joshi Nitin
Abstract
Climate modelling and prediction studies play crucial role in identifying suitable mitigation techniques to minimize or avoid adverse consequences of climate extremes. The accurate spatially and temporally distributed temperature and rainfall dataset are key components in climate prediction studies. Reanalysis datasets provide better spatial and temporal coverage than observational datasets; therefore, reanalysis datasets are widely used for global and regional studies. However, before using the reanalysis dataset in climate modelling studies, it is crucial to compare the robustness and accuracy of the reanalysis dataset with the observational dataset. In this study, daily gridded maximum and minimum temperature datasets of Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) (1°?×?1°) and Sheffield (0.25°×0.25°) are compared using 62-years data i.e 1951-2012. The comparison is based on differences in spatial distribution pattern, probability distribution functions plots and box-plots of the respective gridded dataset. The spatial distribution of grid-wise averaged maximum and minimum temperature dataset generally compare well across pan India in both IMD and Sheffield; however, the significant differences are observed over western Himalaya (WH) and northeast (NE) region. The probability distribution of the pooled mean minimum temperature dataset of IMD is found significantly different from Sheffield using the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test. This study will be helpful for researchers who are planning to use Sheffield gridded temperature dataset for climate modelling studies.
Publisher
World Energy and Environment Technology Ltd - WEENTECH
Reference32 articles.
1. [1] J. A. Patz, D. Campbell-Lendrum, T. Holloway, and J. A. Foley, “Impact of regional climate change on human health,” Nature. 2005, doi: 10.1038/nature04188.
2. [2] E. Vogel et al., “The effects of climate extremes on global agricultural yields,” Environ. Res. Lett., 2019, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab154b.
3. [3] S. I. Seneviratne et al., “Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical environment,” in Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2012.
4. [4] S. A. Changnon, J. M. Changnon, and G. J. D. Hewings, “Losses caused by weather and climate extremes: A national index for the united states,” Phys. Geogr., 2001, doi: 10.1080/02723646.2001.10642727.
5. [5] I. P. O. C. C. IPCC, “Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC,” Science (80-. )., 2007, doi: volume.