Articles | Volume 17, issue 23
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8665-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8665-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Methods for assessment of models
| Highlight paper
| 
09 Dec 2024
Methods for assessment of models | Highlight paper |
| 09 Dec 2024
| 09 Dec 2024
Evaluating downscaled products with expected hydroclimatic co-variances
Seung H. Baek
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Atmospheric, Earth, & Energy Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA
Paul A. Ullrich
Atmospheric, Earth, & Energy Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA
Bo Dong
Atmospheric, Earth, & Energy Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA
Jiwoo Lee
Atmospheric, Earth, & Energy Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA
Related authors
No articles found.
Jishi Zhang, Jean–Christophe Golaz, Matthew Vincent Signorotti, Hsiang–He Lee, Peter Bogenschutz, Minda Monteagudo, Paul Aaron Ullrich, Robert S. Arthur, Stephen Po–Chedley, Philip Cameron–smith, and Jean–Paul Watson
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3947, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3947, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
We ran a convection-permitting model with regional mesh refinement (3.25 km and 800 m) to simulate present-day wind and solar capacity factors over California, coupling it to an energy generation model. The high-resolution models captured realistic seasonal and diurnal cycles, with wind markedly better than a 25 km model and solar outperforming a 3 km operational forecast. We highlight the critical role of resolution, modeling assumptions, and data reliability in renewable energy assessment.
Forrest M. Hoffman, Birgit Hassler, Ranjini Swaminathan, Jared Lewis, Bouwe Andela, Nathaniel Collier, Dóra Hegedűs, Jiwoo Lee, Charlotte Pascoe, Mika Pflüger, Martina Stockhause, Paul Ullrich, Min Xu, Lisa Bock, Felicity Chun, Bettina K. Gier, Douglas I. Kelley, Axel Lauer, Julien Lenhardt, Manuel Schlund, Mohanan G. Sreeush, Katja Weigel, Ed Blockley, Rebecca Beadling, Romain Beucher, Demiso D. Dugassa, Valerio Lembo, Jianhua Lu, Swen Brands, Jerry Tjiputra, Elizaveta Malinina, Brian Mederios, Enrico Scoccimarro, Jeremy Walton, Philip Kershaw, André L. Marquez, Malcolm J. Roberts, Eleanor O’Rourke, Elisabeth Dingley, Briony Turner, Helene Hewitt, and John P. Dunne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
As Earth system models become more complex, rapid and comprehensive evaluation through comparison with observational data is necessary. The upcoming Assessment Fast Track for the Seventh Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) will require fast analysis. This paper describes a new Rapid Evaluation Framework (REF) that was developed for the Assessment Fast Track that will be run at the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) to inform the community about the performance of models.
Katherine M. Smith, Alice M. Barthel, LeAnn M. Conlon, Luke P. Van Roekel, Anthony Bartoletti, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Chengzhu Zhang, Carolyn Branecky Begeman, James J. Benedict, Gautam Bisht, Yan Feng, Walter Hannah, Bryce E. Harrop, Nicole Jeffery, Wuyin Lin, Po-Lun Ma, Mathew E. Maltrud, Mark R. Petersen, Balwinder Singh, Qi Tang, Teklu Tesfa, Jonathan D. Wolfe, Shaocheng Xie, Xue Zheng, Karthik Balaguru, Oluwayemi Garuba, Peter Gleckler, Aixue Hu, Jiwoo Lee, Ben Moore-Maley, and Ana C. Ordoñez
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1613–1633, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Version 2.1 of the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) adds the Fox-Kemper et al. (2011) mixed-layer eddy parameterization, which restratifies the ocean surface layer through an overturning streamfunction. Results include surface layer bias reduction in temperature, salinity, and sea ice extent in the North Atlantic; a small strengthening of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation; and improvements to many atmospheric climatological variables.
Malcolm J. Roberts, Kevin A. Reed, Qing Bao, Joseph J. Barsugli, Suzana J. Camargo, Louis-Philippe Caron, Ping Chang, Cheng-Ta Chen, Hannah M. Christensen, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Ivy Frenger, Neven S. Fučkar, Shabeh ul Hasson, Helene T. Hewitt, Huanping Huang, Daehyun Kim, Chihiro Kodama, Michael Lai, Lai-Yung Ruby Leung, Ryo Mizuta, Paulo Nobre, Pablo Ortega, Dominique Paquin, Christopher D. Roberts, Enrico Scoccimarro, Jon Seddon, Anne Marie Treguier, Chia-Ying Tu, Paul A. Ullrich, Pier Luigi Vidale, Michael F. Wehner, Colin M. Zarzycki, Bosong Zhang, Wei Zhang, and Ming Zhao
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1307–1332, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1307-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1307-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
HighResMIP2 is a model intercomparison project focusing on high-resolution global climate models, that is, those with grid spacings of 25 km or less in the atmosphere and ocean, using simulations of decades to a century in length. We are proposing an update of our simulation protocol to make the models more applicable to key questions for climate variability and hazard in present-day and future projections and to build links with other communities to provide more robust climate information.
Bo Dong, Paul Ullrich, Jiwoo Lee, Peter Gleckler, Kristin Chang, and Travis A. O'Brien
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 961–976, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-961-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-961-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
A metrics package designed for easy analysis of atmospheric river (AR) characteristics and statistics is presented. The tool is efficient for diagnosing systematic AR bias in climate models and useful for evaluating new AR characteristics in model simulations. In climate models, landfalling AR precipitation shows dry biases globally, and AR tracks are farther poleward (equatorward) in the North and South Atlantic (South Pacific and Indian Ocean).
Paul J. Durack, Karl E. Taylor, Peter J. Gleckler, Gerald A. Meehl, Bryan N. Lawrence, Curt Covey, Ronald J. Stouffer, Guillaume Levavasseur, Atef Ben-Nasser, Sebastien Denvil, Martina Stockhause, Jonathan M. Gregory, Martin Juckes, Sasha K. Ames, Fabrizio Antonio, David C. Bader, John P. Dunne, Daniel Ellis, Veronika Eyring, Sandro L. Fiore, Sylvie Joussaume, Philip Kershaw, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Michael Lautenschlager, Jiwoo Lee, Chris F. Mauzey, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Alessandra Nuzzo, Eleanor O’Rourke, Jeffrey Painter, Gerald L. Potter, Sven Rodriguez, and Dean N. Williams
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3729, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3729, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
CMIP6 was the most expansive and ambitious Model Intercomparison Project (MIP), the latest in a history, extending four decades. CMIP engaged a growing community focused on improving climate understanding, and quantifying and attributing observed climate change being experienced today. The project's profound impact is due to the combining the latest climate science and technology, enabling the latest-generation climate simulations and increasing community attention in every successive phase.
Jiwoo Lee, Peter J. Gleckler, Min-Seop Ahn, Ana Ordonez, Paul A. Ullrich, Kenneth R. Sperber, Karl E. Taylor, Yann Y. Planton, Eric Guilyardi, Paul Durack, Celine Bonfils, Mark D. Zelinka, Li-Wei Chao, Bo Dong, Charles Doutriaux, Chengzhu Zhang, Tom Vo, Jason Boutte, Michael F. Wehner, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Daehyun Kim, Zeyu Xue, Andrew T. Wittenberg, and John Krasting
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3919–3948, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3919-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3919-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce an open-source software, the PCMDI Metrics Package (PMP), developed for a comprehensive comparison of Earth system models (ESMs) with real-world observations. Using diverse metrics evaluating climatology, variability, and extremes simulated in thousands of simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), PMP aids in benchmarking model improvements across generations. PMP also enables efficient tracking of performance evolutions during ESM developments.
Justin L. Willson, Kevin A. Reed, Christiane Jablonowski, James Kent, Peter H. Lauritzen, Ramachandran Nair, Mark A. Taylor, Paul A. Ullrich, Colin M. Zarzycki, David M. Hall, Don Dazlich, Ross Heikes, Celal Konor, David Randall, Thomas Dubos, Yann Meurdesoif, Xi Chen, Lucas Harris, Christian Kühnlein, Vivian Lee, Abdessamad Qaddouri, Claude Girard, Marco Giorgetta, Daniel Reinert, Hiroaki Miura, Tomoki Ohno, and Ryuji Yoshida
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2493–2507, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2493-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2493-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate simulation of tropical cyclones (TCs) is essential to understanding their behavior in a changing climate. One way this is accomplished is through model intercomparison projects, where results from multiple climate models are analyzed to provide benchmark solutions for the wider climate modeling community. This study describes and analyzes the previously developed TC test case for nine climate models in an intercomparison project, providing solutions that aid in model development.
Lele Shu, Paul Ullrich, Xianhong Meng, Christopher Duffy, Hao Chen, and Zhaoguo Li
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 497–527, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-497-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-497-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Our team developed rSHUD v2.0, a toolkit that simplifies the use of the SHUD, a model simulating water movement in the environment. We demonstrated its effectiveness in two watersheds, one in the USA and one in China. The toolkit also facilitated the creation of the Global Hydrological Data Cloud, a platform for automatic data processing and model deployment, marking a significant advancement in hydrological research.
Min-Seop Ahn, Paul A. Ullrich, Peter J. Gleckler, Jiwoo Lee, Ana C. Ordonez, and Angeline G. Pendergrass
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3927–3951, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3927-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3927-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce a framework for regional-scale evaluation of simulated precipitation distributions with 62 climate reference regions and 10 metrics and apply it to evaluate CMIP5 and CMIP6 models against multiple satellite-based precipitation products. The common model biases identified in this study are mainly associated with the overestimated light precipitation and underestimated heavy precipitation. These biases persist from earlier-generation models and have been slightly improved in CMIP6.
Qi Tang, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Luke P. Van Roekel, Mark A. Taylor, Wuyin Lin, Benjamin R. Hillman, Paul A. Ullrich, Andrew M. Bradley, Oksana Guba, Jonathan D. Wolfe, Tian Zhou, Kai Zhang, Xue Zheng, Yunyan Zhang, Meng Zhang, Mingxuan Wu, Hailong Wang, Cheng Tao, Balwinder Singh, Alan M. Rhoades, Yi Qin, Hong-Yi Li, Yan Feng, Yuying Zhang, Chengzhu Zhang, Charles S. Zender, Shaocheng Xie, Erika L. Roesler, Andrew F. Roberts, Azamat Mametjanov, Mathew E. Maltrud, Noel D. Keen, Robert L. Jacob, Christiane Jablonowski, Owen K. Hughes, Ryan M. Forsyth, Alan V. Di Vittorio, Peter M. Caldwell, Gautam Bisht, Renata B. McCoy, L. Ruby Leung, and David C. Bader
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3953–3995, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3953-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3953-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
High-resolution simulations are superior to low-resolution ones in capturing regional climate changes and climate extremes. However, uniformly reducing the grid size of a global Earth system model is too computationally expensive. We provide an overview of the fully coupled regionally refined model (RRM) of E3SMv2 and document a first-of-its-kind set of climate production simulations using RRM at an economic cost. The key to this success is our innovative hybrid time step method.
Abhishekh Kumar Srivastava, Paul Aaron Ullrich, Deeksha Rastogi, Pouya Vahmani, Andrew Jones, and Richard Grotjahn
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3699–3722, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3699-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3699-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Stakeholders need high-resolution regional climate data for applications such as assessing water availability and mountain snowpack. This study examines 3 h and 24 h historical precipitation over the contiguous United States in the 12 km WRF version 4.2.1-based dynamical downscaling of the ERA5 reanalysis. WRF improves precipitation characteristics such as the annual cycle and distribution of the precipitation maxima, but it also displays regionally and seasonally varying precipitation biases.
Zeyu Xue, Paul Ullrich, and Lai-Yung Ruby Leung
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1909–1927, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1909-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1909-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We examine the sensitivity and robustness of conclusions drawn from the PGW method over the NEUS by conducting multiple PGW experiments and varying the perturbation spatial scales and choice of perturbed meteorological variables to provide a guideline for this increasingly popular regional modeling method. Overall, we recommend PGW experiments be performed with perturbations to temperature or the combination of temperature and wind at the gridpoint scale, depending on the research question.
David H. Marsico and Paul A. Ullrich
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1537–1551, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1537-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1537-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models involve several different components, such as the atmosphere, ocean, and land models. Information needs to be exchanged, or remapped, between these models, and devising algorithms for performing this exchange is important for ensuring the accuracy of climate simulations. In this paper, we examine the efficacy of several traditional and novel approaches to remapping on the sphere and demonstrate where our approaches offer improvement.
Chengzhu Zhang, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Ryan Forsyth, Tom Vo, Shaocheng Xie, Zeshawn Shaheen, Gerald L. Potter, Xylar S. Asay-Davis, Charles S. Zender, Wuyin Lin, Chih-Chieh Chen, Chris R. Terai, Salil Mahajan, Tian Zhou, Karthik Balaguru, Qi Tang, Cheng Tao, Yuying Zhang, Todd Emmenegger, Susannah Burrows, and Paul A. Ullrich
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 9031–9056, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9031-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9031-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Earth system model (ESM) developers run automated analysis tools on data from candidate models to inform model development. This paper introduces a new Python package, E3SM Diags, that has been developed to support ESM development and use routinely in the development of DOE's Energy Exascale Earth System Model. This tool covers a set of essential diagnostics to evaluate the mean physical climate from simulations, as well as several process-oriented and phenomenon-based evaluation diagnostics.
Vijay S. Mahadevan, Jorge E. Guerra, Xiangmin Jiao, Paul Kuberry, Yipeng Li, Paul Ullrich, David Marsico, Robert Jacob, Pavel Bochev, and Philip Jones
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6601–6635, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6601-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6601-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Coupled Earth system models require transfer of field data between multiple components with varying spatial resolutions to determine the correct climate behavior. We present the Metrics for Intercomparison of Remapping Algorithms (MIRA) protocol to evaluate the accuracy, conservation properties, monotonicity, and local feature preservation of four different remapper algorithms for various unstructured mesh problems of interest. Future extensions to more practical use cases are also discussed.
Paul A. Ullrich, Colin M. Zarzycki, Elizabeth E. McClenny, Marielle C. Pinheiro, Alyssa M. Stansfield, and Kevin A. Reed
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 5023–5048, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5023-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5023-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
TempestExtremes (TE) is a multifaceted framework for feature detection, tracking, and scientific analysis of regional or global Earth system datasets. Version 2.1 of TE now provides extensive support for nodal and areal features. This paper describes the algorithms that have been added to the TE framework since version 1.0 and gives several examples of how these can be combined to produce composite algorithms for evaluating and understanding atmospheric features.
Cited articles
Abatzoglou, J. T. and Brown, T. J.: A comparison of statistical downscaling methods suited for wildfire applications, Int. J. Climatol., 32, 772–780, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.2312, 2012.
Baek, S. H.: Evaluating statistical downscaled products with expected hydroclimatic co-variances, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11194306, 2024.
Baek, S. H., Smerdon, J. E., Seager, R., Williams, A. P., and Cook, B. I.: Pacific Ocean Forcing and Atmospheric Variability Are the Dominant Causes of Spatially Widespread Droughts in the Contiguous United States, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 2507–2524, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029219, 2019.
Baek, S. H., Smerdon, J. E., Dobrin, G.-C., Naimark, J. G., Cook, E. R., Cook, B. I., Seager, R., Cane, M. A., and Scholz, S. R.: A quantitative hydroclimatic context for the European Great Famine of 1315–1317, Commun. Earth Environ., 1, 19, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00016-3, 2020.
Baek, S. H., Smerdon, J. E., Cook, B. I., and Williams, A. P.: U.S. Pacific Coastal Droughts Are Predominantly Driven by Internal Atmospheric Variability, J. Climate, 34, 1947–1962, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0365.1, 2021.
Cash, D., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N., Eckley, N., and Jäger, J.: Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making, SSRN, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.372280, 2002.
Chen, X., Leung, L. R., Gao, Y., Liu, Y., and Wigmosta, M.: Sharpening of cold-season storms over the western United States, Nat. Clim. Change, 13, 167–173, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01578-0, 2023.
Dai, A., Rasmussen, R. M., Ikeda, K., and Liu, C.: A new approach to construct representative future forcing data for dynamic downscaling, Clim. Dynam., 55, 315–323, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3708-8, 2020.
Durre, I., Arguez A., Schreck C. J., Squires, M. F., and Vose, R. S.: Daily High-Resolution Temperature and Precipitation Fields for the Contiguous United States from 1951 to Present, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 39, 1837–1855, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-22-0024.1, 2022a.
Durre, I., Squires, M. F., Vose, R. S., Arguez, A., Gross, W. S., Rennie, J. R., and Schreck C. J.: NOAA's nClimGrid-Daily Version 1 – Daily gridded temperature and precipitation for the Contiguous United States since 1951, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information [data set], https://doi.org/10.25921/c4gt-r169, 2022b.
ESGF LLNL Metagrid: CMIP6, ESGF [data set], https://aims2.llnl.gov/search/cmip6, last access: 9 October 2024a.
ESGF LLNL Metagrid: DRCDP, ESGF [data set], https://aims2.llnl.gov/search/drcdp, last access: 4 December 2024b.
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016.
Fiedler, T., Pitman, A. J., Mackenzie, K., Wood, N., Jakob, C., and Perkins-Kirkpatrick, S. E.: Business risk and the emergence of climate analytics, Nat. Clim. Change, 11, 87–94, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00984-6, 2021.
Giorgi, F.: Thirty Years of Regional Climate Modeling: Where Are We and Where Are We Going next?, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 5696–5723, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD030094, 2019.
Hayhoe, K., Scott-Fleming, I., Stoner, A., and Wuebbles, D. J.: STAR-ESDM: A Generalizable Approach to Generating High-Resolution Climate Projections Through Signal Decomposition, Earth's Future, 12, e2023EF004107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF004107, 2024.
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., De Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.: The ERA5 global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020.
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Biavati, G., Horányi, A., Muñoz Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Rozum, I., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Dee, D., and Thépaut, J.-N.: ERA5 hourly data on single levels from 1940 to present, Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS) [data set], https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.adbb2d47, 2023.
Jones, A. D., Rastogi, D., Vahmani, P., Stansfield, A. M., Reed, K. A., Thurber, T., Ullrich, P. A., and Rice, J. S.: Continental United States climate projections based on thermodynamic modification of historical weather, Sci. Data, 10, 664, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02485-5, 2023.
Liu, C., Ikeda, K., Rasmussen, R., Barlage, M., Newman, A. J., Prein, A. F., Chen, F., Chen, L., Clark, M., Dai, A., Dudhia, J., Eidhammer, T., Gochis, D., Gutmann, E., Kurkute, S., Li, Y., Thompson, G., and Yates, D.: Continental-scale convection-permitting modeling of the current and future climate of North America, Clim. Dynam., 49, 71–95, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3327-9, 2017.
Livneh, B., Bohn, T. J., Pierce, D. W., Munoz-Arriola, F., Nijssen, B., Vose, R., Cayan, D. R., and Brekke, L.: A spatially comprehensive, hydrometeorological data set for Mexico, the U.S., and Southern Canada 1950–2013, Sci. Data, 2, 150042, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2015.42, 2015a.
Livneh, B., Bohn, T. J., Pierce, D. W., Muñoz-Arriola, F., Nijssen, B., Vose, R., Cayan, D. R., and Brekke, L.: A spatially comprehensive, meteorological data set for Mexico, the U.S., and southern Canada (NCEI Accession 0129374), NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information [data set], https://doi.org/10.7289/v5x34vf6, 2015b.
Lloyd, E. A., Bukovsky, M., and Mearns, L. O.: An analysis of the disagreement about added value by regional climate models, Synthese, 198, 11645–11672, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02821-x, 2021.
Martin, N.: Incorporating Weather Attribution to Future Water Budget Projections, Hydrology, 10, 219, https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology10120219, 2023.
Mearns, L., McGinnis, S., Korytina, D., Arritt, R., Biner, S., Bukovsky, M., Chang, H., Christensen, O., Herzmann, D., Jiao, Y., Kharin, S., Lazare, M., Nikulin, G., Qian, M., Scinocca, J., Winger, K., Castro, C., Frigon, A., and Gutowski, W.: The NA-CORDEX dataset, version 1.0, NCAR Climate Data Gateway [data set], https://doi.org/10.5065/D6SJ1JCH, 2017.
Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Eyring, V., Flato, G., Lamarque, J.-F., Stouffer, R. J., Taylor, K. E., and Schlund, M.: Context for interpreting equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response from the CMIP6 Earth system models, Sci. Adv., 6, eaba1981, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba1981, 2020.
Milly, P. C. D., Betancourt, J., Falkenmark, M., Hirsch, R. M., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Stouffer, R. J.: Stationarity Is Dead: Whither Water Management?, Science, 319, 573–574, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1151915, 2008.
Najibi, N., Perez, A. J., Arnold, W., Schwarz, A., Maendly, R., and Steinschneider, S.: A statewide, weather-regime based stochastic weather generator for process-based bottom-up climate risk assessments in California – Part I: Model evaluation, Clim. Serv., 34, 100489, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2024.100489, 2024.
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI): U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information [data set], https://doi.org/10.25921/stkw-7w73, 2024.
Pierce, D. W.: LOCA2 [data set], https://cirrus.ucsd.edu/~pierce/LOCA2, last access: 9 October 2024.
Pierce, D. W., Cayan, D. R., and Thrasher, B. L.: Statistical Downscaling Using Localized Constructed Analogs (LOCA), J. Hydrometeorol., 15, 2558–2585, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-14-0082.1, 2014.
Pierce, D. W., Su, L., Cayan, D. R., Risser, M. D., Livneh, B., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: An extreme-preserving long-term gridded daily precipitation data set for the conterminous United States, J. Hydrometeorol., 22, 1883–1895, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-20-0212.1, 2021.
Pierce, D. W., Cayan, D. R., Feldman, D. R., and Risser, M. D.: Future Increases in North American Extreme Precipitation in CMIP6 Downscaled with LOCA, J. Hydrometeorol., 24, 951–975, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-22-0194.1, 2023.
Pitman, A. J., Fiedler, T., Ranger, N., Jakob, C., Ridder, N., Perkins-Kirkpatrick, S., Wood, N., and Abramowitz, G.: Acute climate risks in the financial system: examining the utility of climate model projections, Environ. Res.: Climate, 1, 025002, https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5295/ac856f, 2022.
Rahimi, S., Huang, L., Norris, J., Hall, A., Goldenson, N., Risser, M., Feldman, D. R., Lebo, Z. J., Dennis, E., and Thackeray, C.: Understanding the Cascade: Removing GCM Biases Improves Dynamically Downscaled Climate Projections, Geophys. Res. Lett., 51, e2023GL106264, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL106264, 2024.
Rasmussen, R. M., Chen, F., Liu, C. H., Ikeda, K., Prein, A., Kim, J., Schneider, T., Dai, A., Gochis, D., Dugger, A., Zhang, Y., Jaye, A., Dudhia, J., He, C., Harrold, M., Xue, L., Chen, S., Newman, A., Dougherty, E., Abolafia-Rosenzweig, R., Lybarger, N. D., Viger, R., Lesmes, D., Skalak, K., Brakebill, J., Cline, D., Dunne, K., Rasmussen, K., and Miguez-Macho, G.: CONUS404: The NCAR–USGS 4 km Long-Term Regional Hydroclimate Reanalysis over the CONUS, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 104, E1382–E1408, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-21-0326.1, 2023.
Scholz, S. R., Seager, R., Ting, M., Kushnir, Y., Smerdon, J. E., Cook, B. I., Cook, E. R., and Baek, S. H.: Changing hydroclimate dynamics and the 19th to 20th century wetting trend in the English Channel region of northwest Europe, Clim. Dynam., 58, 1539–1553, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05977-5, 2022.
Thrasher, B., Maurer, E. P., McKellar, C., and Duffy, P. B.: Technical Note: Bias correcting climate model simulated daily temperature extremes with quantile mapping, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 3309–3314, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3309-2012, 2012.
Thrasher, B., Wang, W., Michaelis, A., Melton, F., Lee, T., and Nemani, R.: NASA Global Daily Downscaled Projections, CMIP6, Sci. Data, 9, 262, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01393-4, 2022.
Ullrich, P.: Validation of LOCA2 and STAR-ESDM Statistically Downscaled Products, Technical Report, U.S. DOE, https://doi.org/10.2172/2202926, 2023.
USGCRP: Fifth National Climate Assessment, US Global Change Research Program, https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA5.2023, 2023.
Wang, Z., Vivoni, E. R., Whitney, K. M., Xiao, M., and Mascaro, G.: On the Sensitivity of Future Hydrology in the Colorado River to the Selection of the Precipitation Partitioning Method, Water Resour. Res., 60, e2023WR035801, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023WR035801, 2024.
Xu, Z., Han, Y., and Yang, Z.: Dynamical downscaling of regional climate: A review of methods and limitations, Sci. China Earth Sci., 62, 365–375, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-018-9261-5, 2019.
Zhang, Y. and Boos, W. R.: An upper bound for extreme temperatures over midlatitude land, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 120, e2215278120, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2215278120, 2023.
Zumwald, M., Knüsel, B., Baumberger, C., Hirsch Hadorn, G., Bresch, D. N., and Knutti, R.: Understanding and assessing uncertainty of observational climate datasets for model evaluation using ensembles, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change, 11, e654, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.654, 2020.
Executive editor
This paper addresses the conditions in which GCM and downscaled solutions diverge for targeted processes under historical and future climate conditions. Downscaling is a crucial part of making climate model outputs useable by the wider science and policy community. Understanding the properties and limitations of downscaling should hence be of interest far beyond the model development community.
This paper addresses the conditions in which GCM and downscaled solutions diverge for targeted...
Short summary
We evaluate downscaled products by examining locally relevant co-variances during precipitation events. Common statistical downscaling techniques preserve expected co-variances during convective precipitation (a stationary phenomenon). However, they dampen future intensification of frontal precipitation (a non-stationary phenomenon) captured in global climate models and dynamical downscaling. Our study quantifies a ramification of the stationarity assumption underlying statistical downscaling.
We evaluate downscaled products by examining locally relevant co-variances during precipitation...
