Assessing sensitivities of climate model weighting to multiple methods, variables, and domains in the south-central United States

Abstract. Given the increasing use of climate projections and multi-model ensemble weighting for a diverse array of applications, this project assesses the sensitivities of climate model weighting strategies and their resulting ensemble means to multiple components, such as the weighting schemes, climate variables, or spatial domains of interest. The purpose of this study is to assess the sensitivities associated with multi-model weighting strategies. The analysis makes use of global climate models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) and their statistically downscaled counterparts created with the localized constructed analogs (LOCA) method. This work focuses on historical and projected future mean precipitation and daily high temperatures of the south-central United States. Results suggest that the model weights and the corresponding weighted model means can be sensitive to the weighting strategy that is applied. For instance, when estimating model weights based on Louisiana precipitation, the weighted projections show a wetter and cooler south-central domain in the future compared to other weighting strategies. Alternatively, for example, when estimating model weights based on New Mexico temperature, the weighted projections show a drier and warmer south-central domain in the future. However, when considering the entire south-central domain in estimating the model weights, the weighted future projections show a compromise in the precipitation and temperature estimates. As for uncertainty, our matrix of results provided a more certain picture of future climate compared to the spread in the original model ensemble. If future impact assessments utilize weighting strategies, then our findings suggest that how the specific weighting strategy is used with climate projections may depend on the needs of an impact assessment or adaptation plan.

[1]  M. Maltrud,et al.  Application-specific optimal model weighting of global climate models: A red tide example , 2022, Climate services.

[2]  Tobias K. D. Weber,et al.  Diagnosing similarities in probabilistic multi-model ensembles: an application to soil–plant-growth-modeling , 2022, Modeling Earth Systems and Environment.

[3]  G. Schmidt,et al.  Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem , 2022, Nature.

[4]  A. Weerts,et al.  Estimating Regionalized Hydrological Impacts of Climate Change Over Europe by Performance-Based Weighting of CORDEX Projections , 2021, Frontiers in Water.

[5]  M. Stoll,et al.  Ensembles for Viticulture Climate Classifications of the Willamette Valley Wine Region , 2021, Climate.

[6]  A. Chehbouni,et al.  Changes in mean and extreme temperature and precipitation events from different weighted multi-model ensembles over the northern half of Morocco , 2021, Climate Dynamics.

[7]  D. Conway,et al.  Sensitivity of projected climate impacts to climate model weighting: multi-sector analysis in eastern Africa , 2021, Climatic Change.

[8]  D. Waliser,et al.  The Effect of Statistical Downscaling on the Weighting of Multi-Model Ensembles of Precipitation , 2020, Climate.

[9]  D. Waliser,et al.  Atmospheric Rivers and Precipitation in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) , 2020 .

[10]  R. McPherson,et al.  Statistically downscaled precipitation sensitivity to gridded observation data and downscaling technique , 2020, International Journal of Climatology.

[11]  P. Cox,et al.  Emergent constraints on transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from historical warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models , 2020 .

[12]  Jeong‐Soo Park,et al.  A Weighting Scheme in A Multi-Model Ensemble for Bias-Corrected Climate Simulation , 2020, Atmosphere.

[13]  J. Marotzke,et al.  Quantifying the role of internal variability in the temperature we expect to observe in the coming decades , 2020, Environmental Research Letters.

[14]  R. Knutti,et al.  Reduced global warming from CMIP6 projections when weighting models by performance and independence , 2020, Earth System Dynamics.

[15]  Hilppa Gregow,et al.  GCMeval – An interactive tool for evaluation and selection of climate model ensembles , 2020 .

[16]  M. Kunze,et al.  Projecting ozone hole recovery using an ensemble of chemistry–climate models weighted by model performance and independence , 2020, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[17]  R. Knutti,et al.  Quantifying uncertainty in European climate projections using combined performance-independence weighting , 2019, Environmental Research Letters.

[18]  H. Paeth,et al.  Weighted multi-model ensemble projection of extreme precipitation in the Mediterranean region using statistical downscaling , 2019, Theoretical and Applied Climatology.

[19]  Bettina K. Gier,et al.  Taking climate model evaluation to the next level , 2019, Nature Climate Change.

[20]  Yanan Fan,et al.  Accounting for skill in trend, variability, and autocorrelation facilitates better multi-model projections: Application to the AMOC and temperature time series , 2018, PloS one.

[21]  Jinwon Kim,et al.  Regional Climate Model Evaluation System powered by Apache Open Climate Workbench v1.3.0: an enabling tool for facilitating regional climate studies , 2018 .

[22]  Yanan Fan,et al.  A Bayesian posterior predictive framework for weighting ensemble regional climate models , 2017 .

[23]  J. Abatzoglou,et al.  Effects of climate change on snowpack and fire potential in the western USA , 2017, Climatic Change.

[24]  R. Knutti,et al.  Skill and independence weighting for multi-model assessments , 2016 .

[25]  C. Driscoll,et al.  The effects of climate downscaling technique and observational data set on modeled ecological responses. , 2016, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[26]  S. Vavrus,et al.  Evaluation of downscaled, gridded climate data for the conterminous United States. , 2016, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[27]  J. Lanzante,et al.  Evaluating the stationarity assumption in statistically downscaled climate projections: is past performance an indicator of future results? , 2016, Climatic Change.

[28]  Veronika Eyring,et al.  Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization , 2015 .

[29]  S. Vavrus,et al.  Spring plant phenology and false springs in the conterminous US during the 21st century , 2015 .

[30]  D. Cayan,et al.  A spatially comprehensive, hydrometeorological data set for Mexico, the U.S., and Southern Canada 1950–2013 , 2015, Scientific Data.

[31]  G. Robertson,et al.  Can Impacts of Climate Change and Agricultural Adaptation Strategies Be Accurately Quantified if Crop Models Are Annually Re-Initialized? , 2015, PloS one.

[32]  Lisa Dilling,et al.  What do stakeholders need to manage for climate change and variability? A document-based analysis from three mountain states in the Western USA , 2015, Regional Environmental Change.

[33]  J. Schoof Statistical Downscaling in Climatology , 2013 .

[34]  J. Abatzoglou Development of gridded surface meteorological data for ecological applications and modelling , 2013 .

[35]  Nicholas Stern,et al.  Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[36]  Spencer R. Weart,et al.  The development of general circulation models of climate , 2010 .

[37]  Reto Knutti,et al.  The end of model democracy? , 2010 .

[38]  M. Rummukainen State‐of‐the‐art with regional climate models , 2010 .

[39]  Mark A. Liniger,et al.  Can multi‐model combination really enhance the prediction skill of probabilistic ensemble forecasts? , 2007 .

[40]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Multi-model ensemble hydrologic prediction using Bayesian model averaging , 2007 .

[41]  Adrian E. Raftery,et al.  Weather Forecasting with Ensemble Methods , 2005, Science.