The implications of bias correction methods and climate model ensembles on soil erosion projections under climate change

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 1137-1147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joris P. C. Eekhout ◽  
Joris Vente
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Soil Erosion ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Climate Model Ensembles ◽  
Model Ensembles

The implications of soil erosion model conceptualization, bias-correction methods and climate model ensembles on soil erosion projections under climate change

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joris de Vente ◽  
Joris Eekhout
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Soil Erosion ◽  
Extreme Precipitation ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Erosion Model ◽  
Distribution Mapping ◽  
Climate Model Ensembles ◽  
Model Ensembles ◽  
The Impact

<p>Climate models project increased extreme precipitation for the coming decades, which may lead to higher soil erosion in many locations worldwide. The impact of climate change on soil erosion is most often assessed by applying a soil erosion model forced by bias-corrected climate model output. A literature review among more than 100 papers showed that many studies use different soil erosion models, bias-correction methods and climate model ensembles. In this study, we assessed how these differences affect the outcome of climate change impact assessments on soil erosion. The study was performed in two contrasting Mediterranean catchments (SE Spain), where climate change is projected to lead to a decrease in annual precipitation sum and an increase in extreme precipitation, based on the RCP8.5 emission scenario. First, we assessed the impact of soil erosion model selection using the three most widely used model concepts, i.e. a model forced by precipitation (RUSLE), a model forced by runoff (MUSLE), and a model forced by precipitation and runoff (MMF). Depending on the model, soil erosion in the study area is projected to decrease (RUSLE) or increase (MUSLE and MMF). The differences between the model projections are inherently a result of their model conceptualization, such as a decrease of soil loss due to decreased annual precipitation sum (RUSLE) and an increase of soil loss due to increased extreme precipitation and, consequently, increased runoff (MUSLE). An intermediate result is obtained with MMF, where a projected decrease in detachment by raindrop impact is counteracted by a projected increase in detachment by runoff. Second, we evaluated the implications of three bias‐correction methods, i.e. delta change, quantile mapping and scaled distribution mapping. Scaled distribution mapping best reproduces the raw climate change signal, in particular for extreme precipitation. Depending on the bias‐correction method, soil erosion is projected to decrease (delta change) or increase (quantile mapping and scaled distribution mapping). Finally, we assessed the effect of climate model ensembles on soil erosion projections. We showed that individual climate models may project opposite changes with respect to the ensemble average, hence, climate model ensembles are essential in soil erosion impact assessments to account for climate model uncertainty. We conclude that in climate change impact assessments it is important to select a soil erosion model that is forced by both precipitation and runoff, which under climate change may have a contrasting effect on soil erosion. Furthermore, the impact of climate change on soil erosion can only accurately be assessed with a bias‐correction method that best reproduces the projected climate change signal, in combination with a representative ensemble of climate models.</p>

Constraints on radiative forcing and future climate change from observations and climate model ensembles

Nature ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 416 (6882) ◽  
pp. 719-723 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reto Knutti ◽  
Thomas F. Stocker ◽  
Fortunat Joos ◽  
Gian-Kasper Plattner
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Radiative Forcing ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Future Climate ◽  
Future Climate Change ◽  
Climate Model Ensembles ◽  
Model Ensembles

scholarly journals Water under a Changing and Uncertain Climate: Lessons from Climate Model Ensembles*

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (24) ◽  
pp. 9561-9582 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brent Boehlert ◽  
Susan Solomon ◽  
Kenneth M. Strzepek
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
River Runoff ◽  
Water Availability ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Economic Effects ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Climate Model Ensembles ◽  
Model Ensembles

Abstract Climate change and rapidly rising global water demand are expected to place unprecedented pressures on already strained water resource systems. Successfully planning for these future changes requires a sound scientific understanding of the timing, location, and magnitude of climate change impacts on water needs and availability—not only average trends but also interannual variability and quantified uncertainties. In recent years, two types of large-ensemble runs of climate projections have become available: those from groups of more than 20 different climate models and those from repeated runs of several individual models. These provide the basis for novel probabilistic evaluation of both projected climate change and the resulting effects on water resources. Using a broad range of available ensembles, this research explores the spatial and temporal patterns of high confidence as well as uncertainty in projected river runoff, irrigation water requirements, basin storage yield, and cost estimates of adapting regional water systems to maintain historical supply. Projections of river runoff show robust between-ensemble agreement in regional drying (e.g., southern Africa and southern Europe) and wetting trends (e.g., northeastern United States). By integrating runoff over space and time, the economic effects of adapting supply systems to 2050 water availability show still broader trend agreement across ensembles. That agreement, obtained across such a wide range of multiple-member climate model ensembles in some locations, suggests a high degree of confidence in direction of change in water availability and provides clearer signals for longer-term investment decisions in water infrastructure.

scholarly journals Cross-validation of bias-corrected climate simulations is misleading

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (9) ◽  
pp. 4867-4873 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Maraun ◽  
Martin Widmann
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Cross Validation ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Internal Variability ◽  
Validation Period ◽  
Climate Simulations ◽  
Free Running ◽  
The Difference

Abstract. We demonstrate both analytically and with a modelling example that cross-validation of free-running bias-corrected climate change simulations against observations is misleading. The underlying reasoning is as follows: a cross-validation can have in principle two outcomes. A negative (in the sense of not rejecting a null hypothesis), if the residual bias in the validation period after bias correction vanishes; and a positive, if the residual bias in the validation period after bias correction is large. It can be shown analytically that the residual bias depends solely on the difference between the simulated and observed change between calibration and validation periods. This change, however, depends mainly on the realizations of internal variability in the observations and climate model. As a consequence, the outcome of a cross-validation is also dominated by internal variability, and does not allow for any conclusion about the sensibility of a bias correction. In particular, a sensible bias correction may be rejected (false positive) and a non-sensible bias correction may be accepted (false negative). We therefore propose to avoid cross-validation when evaluating bias correction of free-running bias-corrected climate change simulations against observations. Instead, one should evaluate non-calibrated temporal, spatial and process-based aspects.

scholarly journals Effect of Climate Change on Soil Erosion in a Mountainous Mediterranean Catchment (Central Pindus, Greece)

Water ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 1469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanos Stefanidis ◽  
Dimitrios Stathis
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Soil Erosion ◽  
Potential Model ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Baseline Period ◽  
Mean Annual Temperature ◽  
Temperature Changes ◽  
Mountainous Catchment ◽  
Precipitation And Temperature

The aim of this study was to assess soil erosion changes in the mountainous catchment of the Portaikos torrent (Central Greece) under climate change. To this end, precipitation and temperature data were derived from a high-resolution (25 × 25 km) RegCM3 regional climate model for the baseline period 1974–2000 and future period 2074–2100. Additionally, three GIS layers were generated regarding land cover, geology, and slopes in the study area, whereas erosion state was recognized after field observations. Subsequently, the erosion potential model (EPM) was applied to quantify the effects of precipitation and temperature changes on soil erosion. The results showed a decrease (−21.2%) in annual precipitation (mm) and increase (+3.6 °C) in mean annual temperature until the end of the 21st century, and the above changes are likely to lead to a small decrease (−4.9%) in soil erosion potential.

scholarly journals Reliability and importance of structural diversity of climate model ensembles

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (9-10) ◽  
pp. 2745-2763 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tokuta Yokohata ◽  
James D. Annan ◽  
Matthew Collins ◽  
Charles S. Jackson ◽  
Hideo Shiogama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Model ◽  
Structural Diversity ◽  
Climate Model Ensembles ◽  
Model Ensembles

scholarly journals Are we using the right fuel to drive hydrological models? A climate impact study in the Upper Blue Nile

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 2163-2185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Liersch ◽  
Julia Tecklenburg ◽  
Henning Rust ◽  
Andreas Dobler ◽  
Madlen Fischer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Model Performance ◽  
Climate Impact ◽  
Hydrological Models ◽  
Blue Nile ◽  
Projected Change ◽  
Model Ensembles

Abstract. Climate simulations are the fuel to drive hydrological models that are used to assess the impacts of climate change and variability on hydrological parameters, such as river discharges, soil moisture, and evapotranspiration. Unlike with cars, where we know which fuel the engine requires, we never know in advance what unexpected side effects might be caused by the fuel we feed our models with. Sometimes we increase the fuel's octane number (bias correction) to achieve better performance and find out that the model behaves differently but not always as was expected or desired. This study investigates the impacts of projected climate change on the hydrology of the Upper Blue Nile catchment using two model ensembles consisting of five global CMIP5 Earth system models and 10 regional climate models (CORDEX Africa). WATCH forcing data were used to calibrate an eco-hydrological model and to bias-correct both model ensembles using slightly differing approaches. On the one hand it was found that the bias correction methods considerably improved the performance of average rainfall characteristics in the reference period (1970–1999) in most of the cases. This also holds true for non-extreme discharge conditions between Q20 and Q80. On the other hand, bias-corrected simulations tend to overemphasize magnitudes of projected change signals and extremes. A general weakness of both uncorrected and bias-corrected simulations is the rather poor representation of high and low flows and their extremes, which were often deteriorated by bias correction. This inaccuracy is a crucial deficiency for regional impact studies dealing with water management issues and it is therefore important to analyse model performance and characteristics and the effect of bias correction, and eventually to exclude some climate models from the ensemble. However, the multi-model means of all ensembles project increasing average annual discharges in the Upper Blue Nile catchment and a shift in seasonal patterns, with decreasing discharges in June and July and increasing discharges from August to November.

Climate Model Biases and Modification of the Climate Change Signal by Intensity-Dependent Bias Correction

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (16) ◽  
pp. 6591-6610 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Aleksandrov Ivanov ◽  
Jürg Luterbacher ◽  
Sven Kotlarski
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Daily Precipitation ◽  
Analytical Description ◽  
Analytical Theory ◽  
Climate Change Signal ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Model Biases

Climate change impact research and risk assessment require accurate estimates of the climate change signal (CCS). Raw climate model data include systematic biases that affect the CCS of high-impact variables such as daily precipitation and wind speed. This paper presents a novel, general, and extensible analytical theory of the effect of these biases on the CCS of the distribution mean and quantiles. The theory reveals that misrepresented model intensities and probability of nonzero (positive) events have the potential to distort raw model CCS estimates. We test the analytical description in a challenging application of bias correction and downscaling to daily precipitation over alpine terrain, where the output of 15 regional climate models (RCMs) is reduced to local weather stations. The theoretically predicted CCS modification well approximates the modification by the bias correction method, even for the station–RCM combinations with the largest absolute modifications. These results demonstrate that the CCS modification by bias correction is a direct consequence of removing model biases. Therefore, provided that application of intensity-dependent bias correction is scientifically appropriate, the CCS modification should be a desirable effect. The analytical theory can be used as a tool to 1) detect model biases with high potential to distort the CCS and 2) efficiently generate novel, improved CCS datasets. The latter are highly relevant for the development of appropriate climate change adaptation, mitigation, and resilience strategies. Future research needs to focus on developing process-based bias corrections that depend on simulated intensities rather than preserving the raw model CCS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document