HESS Opinions "Should we apply bias correction to global and regional climate model data?"

Despite considerable progress in recent years, output of both global and regional circulation models is still afflicted with biases to a degree that precludes its direct use, especially in climate change impact studies. This is well known, and to overcome this problem, bias correction (BC; i.e. the correction of model output towards observations in a post-processing step) has now become a standard procedure in climate change impact studies. In this paper we argue that BC is currently often used in an invalid way: it is added to the GCM/RCM model chain without sufficient proof that the consistency of the latter (i.e. the agreement between model dynamics/model output and our judgement) as well as the generality of its applicability increases. BC methods often impair the advantages of circulation models by altering spatiotemporal field consistency, relations among variables and by violating conservation principles. Currently used BC methods largely neglect feedback mechanisms, and it is unclear whether they are time-invariant under climate change conditions. Applying BC increases agreement of climate model output with observations in hindcasts and hence narrows the uncertainty range of simulations and predictions without, however, providing a satisfactory physical justification. This is in most cases not transparent to the end user. We argue that this hides rather than reduces uncertainty, which may lead to avoidable forejudging of end users and decision makers. We present here a brief overview of state-of-the-art bias correction methods, discuss the related assumptions and implications, draw conclusions on the validity of bias correction and propose ways to cope with biased output of circulation models in the short term and how to reduce the bias in the long term. The most promising strategy for improved future global and regional circulation model simulations is the increase in model resolution to the convection-permitting scale in combination with ensemble predictions based on sophisticated approaches for ensemble perturbation. With this article, we advocate communicating the entire uncertainty range associated with climate change predictions openly and hope to stimulate a lively discussion on bias correction among the atmospheric and hydrological community and end users of climate change impact studies.

[1]  H. Künsch,et al.  Bayesian multi-model projection of climate: bias assumptions and interannual variability , 2009 .

[2]  E. Wood,et al.  Bias correction of monthly precipitation and temperature fields from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR4 models using equidistant quantile matching , 2010 .

[3]  Alan K. Betts,et al.  Land‐Surface‐Atmosphere Coupling in Observations and Models , 2009 .

[4]  A. Bodas‐Salcedo,et al.  Dreary state of precipitation in global models , 2010 .

[5]  Richard G. Jones,et al.  An inter-comparison of regional climate models for Europe: model performance in present-day climate , 2007 .

[6]  Lindsay J. Bennett,et al.  The Convective and Orographically‐induced Precipitation Study (COPS): the scientific strategy, the field phase, and research highlights , 2011 .

[7]  P. Paruolo,et al.  Bias correction of the ENSEMBLES high resolution climate change projections for use by impact models , 2011 .

[8]  V. Wulfmeyer,et al.  Evaluation of a climate simulation in Europe based on the WRF–NOAH model system: precipitation in Germany , 2013, Climate Dynamics.

[9]  Stephanie Eisner,et al.  Effects of climate model radiation, humidity and wind estimates on hydrological simulations , 2011 .

[10]  Peter Berg,et al.  Seasonal characteristics of the relationship between daily precipitation intensity and surface temperature , 2009 .

[11]  T. Wigley,et al.  Downscaling general circulation model output: a review of methods and limitations , 1997 .

[12]  D. Maraun,et al.  Precipitation downscaling under climate change: Recent developments to bridge the gap between dynamical models and the end user , 2010 .

[13]  A. H. Murphy,et al.  What Is a Good Forecast? An Essay on the Nature of Goodness in Weather Forecasting , 1993 .

[14]  H. Fowler,et al.  Using regional climate model data to simulate historical and future river flows in northwest England , 2007 .

[15]  V. Wulfmeyer,et al.  Predictive skill of a subset of models participating in D‐PHASE in the COPS region , 2011 .

[16]  L. Hay,et al.  A COMPARISON OF DELTA CHANGE AND DOWNSCALED GCM SCENARIOS FOR THREE MOUNTAINOUS BASINS IN THE UNITED STATES 1 , 2000 .

[17]  T. Oki,et al.  Multimodel Estimate of the Global Terrestrial Water Balance: Setup and First Results , 2011 .

[18]  N. Arnell,et al.  Freshwater resources and their management , 2007 .

[19]  Robert L. Wilby,et al.  Evaluating climate model outputs for hydrological applications , 2010 .

[20]  C. Frei,et al.  Downscaling from GCM precipitation: a benchmark for dynamical and statistical downscaling methods , 2006 .

[21]  Reto Knutti,et al.  Should we believe model predictions of future climate change? , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[22]  S. Seneviratne,et al.  Land–atmosphere coupling and climate change in Europe , 2006, Nature.

[23]  Bruno Merz,et al.  Climate change impact on medium and small sized river catchments in Germany: An ensemble assessment , 2012 .

[24]  J. Hansen,et al.  Bias correction of daily GCM rainfall for crop simulation studies , 2006 .

[25]  S. Vannitsem,et al.  Bias correction and post-processing under climate change , 2011 .

[26]  Luc Feyen,et al.  Improving pan-European hydrological simulation of extreme events through statistical bias correction of RCM-driven climate simulations , 2011 .

[27]  Dieter Gerten,et al.  Impact of a Statistical Bias Correction on the Projected Hydrological Changes Obtained from Three GCMs and Two Hydrology Models , 2011 .

[28]  S. Vannitsem,et al.  Dynamical Properties of MOS Forecasts: Analysis of the ECMWF Operational Forecasting System , 2008 .

[29]  M. Clark,et al.  Use of Regional Climate Model Output for Hydrologic Simulations , 2001 .

[30]  W. Landman.  Climate change 2007: the physical science basis , 2010 .

[31]  P. Jones,et al.  A European daily high-resolution gridded data set of surface temperature and precipitation for 1950-2006 , 2008 .

[32]  J. Christensen,et al.  A summary of the PRUDENCE model projections of changes in European climate by the end of this century , 2007 .

[33]  J. Thepaut,et al.  The ERA‐Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system , 2011 .

[34]  Steven J. Phipps,et al.  Climate drift in the CMIP3 models , 2012 .

[35]  S. Wagner,et al.  Flood Hazards in a Changing Climate , 2012 .

[36]  S. Solomon,et al.  How Often Does It Rain , 2006 .

[37]  Christopher Moseley,et al.  Climate model bias correction and the role of timescales , 2010 .

[38]  C. Nicolis,et al.  Dynamical Properties of Model Output Statistics Forecasts , 2008 .

[39]  D. Lettenmaier,et al.  Hydrologic Implications of Dynamical and Statistical Approaches to Downscaling Climate Model Outputs , 2004 .

[40]  Charles Doutriaux,et al.  Performance metrics for climate models , 2008 .

[41]  Richard G. Jones,et al.  Regional climate models downscaling analysis of general circulation models present climate biases propagation into future change projections , 2008 .

[42]  B. Merz,et al.  High-Resolution Climate Change Impact Analysis on Medium-Sized River Catchments in Germany: An Ensemble Assessment , 2013 .

[43]  M. Babel,et al.  Spatial disaggregation of bias-corrected GCM precipitation for improved hydrologic simulation: Ping River Basin, Thailand , 2007 .

[44]  Sebastian Rast,et al.  Skill, Correction, and Downscaling of GCM-Simulated Precipitation , 2012 .

[45]  U. Germann,et al.  MAP D-PHASE: Real-Time Demonstration of Weather Forecast Quality in the Alpine region , 2009 .

[46]  Masaki Satoh,et al.  Nonhydrostatic icosahedral atmospheric model (NICAM) for global cloud resolving simulations , 2008, J. Comput. Phys..

[47]  A. Bárdossy,et al.  Multivariate stochastic downscaling model for generating daily precipitation series based on atmospheric circulation , 2002 .

[48]  Andrew W. Robertson,et al.  Weather Types and Rainfall over Senegal. Part II: Downscaling of GCM Simulations , 2008 .

[49]  F. Giorgi,et al.  Precipitation Climatology in an Ensemble of CORDEX-Africa Regional Climate Simulations , 2012 .

[50]  Murugesu Sivapalan,et al.  Scale issues in hydrological modelling: A review , 1995 .

[51]  Douglas Maraun,et al.  Nonstationarities of regional climate model biases in European seasonal mean temperature and precipitation sums , 2012 .

[52]  Remko Uijlenhoet,et al.  Evaluation of a bias correction method applied to downscaled precipitation and temperature reanalysis data for the Rhine basin , 2010 .

[53]  W. J. Shuttleworth,et al.  Creation of the WATCH Forcing Data and Its Use to Assess Global and Regional Reference Crop Evaporation over Land during the Twentieth Century , 2011 .

[54]  G. Bürger.  Expanded downscaling for generating local weather scenarios , 1996 .

[55]  S. Hagemann,et al.  On the contribution of statistical bias correction to the uncertainty in the projected hydrological cycle , 2011 .

[56]  M. Clark,et al.  Hydrological responses to dynamically and statistically downscaled climate model output , 2000 .

[57]  M. Clarkb,et al.  Use of statistically and dynamically downscaled atmospheric model output for hydrologic simulations in three mountainous basins in the western United States , 2003 .

[58]  Jan Seibert,et al.  Regional Climate Models for Hydrological Impact Studies at the Catchment Scale: A Review of Recent Modeling Strategies , 2010 .

[59]  T. A. Buishand,et al.  Simulation of 6-hourly rainfall and temperature by two resampling schemes , 2003 .

[60]  J. Christensen,et al.  On the need for bias correction of regional climate change projections of temperature and precipitation , 2008 .

[61]  Fubao Sun,et al.  Hydroclimatic projections for the Murray‐Darling Basin based on an ensemble derived from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR4 climate models , 2011 .

[62]  F. Giorgi,et al.  A Investigation of the Sensitivity of Simulated Precipitation to Model Resolution and Its Implications for Climate Studies , 1996 .

[63]  A. Gobiet,et al.  Empirical‐statistical downscaling and error correction of daily precipitation from regional climate models , 2011 .

[64]  Jan Seibert,et al.  Evaluation of different downscaling techniques for hydrological climate-change impact studies at the catchment scale , 2011 .

[65]  S. Hagemann,et al.  Statistical bias correction of global simulated daily precipitation and temperature for the application of hydrological models , 2010 .

[66]  F. Giorgi,et al.  Addressing climate information needs at the regional level: the CORDEX framework , 2009 .

[67]  Ashish Sharma,et al.  A nesting model for bias correction of variability at multiple time scales in general circulation model precipitation simulations , 2012 .

[68]  C. Schär,et al.  Soil Control on Runoff Response to Climate Change in Regional Climate Model Simulations , 2005 .

[69]  Hiroaki Miura,et al.  Global cloud‐system‐resolving model NICAM successfully simulated the lifecycles of two real tropical cyclones , 2008 .

[70]  Francis W. Zwiers,et al.  Lessons learned from IPCC AR4: scientific developments needed to understand, predict, and respond to climate change. , 2009 .