8 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
- ItemTesting bias adjustment methods for regional climate change applications under observational uncertainty and resolution mismatch(Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 2020) Casanueva, Ana; Herrera, Sixto; Iturbide, Maialen; Lange, Stefan; Jury, Martin; Dosio, Alessandro; Maraun, Douglas; Gutiérrez, José M.Systematic biases in climate models hamper their direct use in impact studies and, as a consequence, many statistical bias adjustment methods have been developed to calibrate model outputs against observations. The application of these methods in a climate change context is problematic since there is no clear understanding on how these methods may affect key magnitudes, for example, the climate change signal or trend, under different sources of uncertainty. Two relevant sources of uncertainty, often overlooked, are the sensitivity to the observational reference used to calibrate the method and the effect of the resolution mismatch between model and observations (downscaling effect). In the present work, we assess the impact of these factors on the climate change signal of temperature and precipitation considering marginal, temporal and extreme aspects. We use eight standard and state-of-the-art bias adjustment methods (spanning a variety of methods regarding their nature—empirical or parametric—, fitted parameters and trend-preservation) for a case study in the Iberian Peninsula. The quantile trend-preserving methods (namely quantile delta mapping (QDM), scaled distribution mapping (SDM) and the method from the third phase of ISIMIP-ISIMIP3) preserve better the raw signals for the different indices and variables considered (not all preserved by construction). However, they rely largely on the reference dataset used for calibration, thus presenting a larger sensitivity to the observations, especially for precipitation intensity, spells and extreme indices. Thus, high-quality observational datasets are essential for comprehensive analyses in larger (continental) domains. Similar conclusions hold for experiments carried out at high (approximately 20 km) and low (approximately 120 km) spatial resolutions. © 2020 The Authors. Atmospheric Science Letters published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the Royal Meteorological Society.
- ItemThe economically optimal warming limit of the planet(Göttingen : Copernicus Publ., 2019) Ueckerd, Falko; Frieler, Katja; Lange, Stefan; Wenz, Leonie; Luderer, Gunnar; Levermann, AndersBoth climate-change damages and climate-change mitigation will incur economic costs. While the risk of severe damages increases with the level of global warming (Dell et al., 2014; IPCC, 2014b, 2018; Lenton et al., 2008), mitigating costs increase steeply with more stringent warming limits (IPCC, 2014a; Luderer et al., 2013; Rogelj et al., 2015). Here, we show that the global warming limit that minimizes this century's total economic costs of climate change lies between 1.9 and 2°C, if temperature changes continue to impact national economic growth rates as observed in the past and if instantaneous growth effects are neither compensated nor amplified by additional growth effects in the following years. The result is robust across a wide range of normative assumptions on the valuation of future welfare and inequality aversion. We combine estimates of climate-change impacts on economic growth for 186 countries (applying an empirical damage function from Burke et al., 2015) with mitigation costs derived from a state-of-the-art energy-economy-climate model with a wide range of highly resolved mitigation options (Kriegler et al., 2017; Luderer et al., 2013, 2015). Our purely economic assessment, even though it omits non-market damages, provides support for the international Paris Agreement on climate change. The political goal of limiting global warming to "well below 2 degrees" is thus also an economically optimal goal given above assumptions on adaptation and damage persistence. © 2019 Copernicus GmbH. All rights reserved.
- ItemComplex networks for climate model evaluation with application to statistical versus dynamical modeling of South American climate(Heidelberg : Springer, 2014) Feldhoff, Jan H.; Lange, Stefan; Volkholz, Jan; Donges, Jonathan F.; Kurths, Jürgen; Gerstengarbe, Friedrich-WilhelmIn this study we introduce two new node-weighted difference measures on complex networks as a tool for climate model evaluation. The approach facilitates the quantification of a model’s ability to reproduce the spatial covariability structure of climatological time series. We apply our methodology to compare the performance of a statistical and a dynamical regional climate model simulating the South American climate, as represented by the variables 2 m temperature, precipitation, sea level pressure, and geopotential height field at 500 hPa. For each variable, networks are constructed from the model outputs and evaluated against a reference network, derived from the ERA-Interim reanalysis, which also drives the models. We compare two network characteristics, the (linear) adjacency structure and the (nonlinear) clustering structure, and relate our findings to conventional methods of model evaluation. To set a benchmark, we construct different types of random networks and compare them alongside the climate model networks. Our main findings are: (1) The linear network structure is better reproduced by the statistical model statistical analogue resampling scheme (STARS) in summer and winter for all variables except the geopotential height field, where the dynamical model CCLM prevails. (2) For the nonlinear comparison, the seasonal differences are more pronounced and CCLM performs almost as well as STARS in summer (except for sea level pressure), while STARS performs better in winter for all variables.
- ItemThe effect of univariate bias adjustment on multivariate hazard estimates(Göttingen : Copernicus Publ., 2019) Zscheischler, Jakob; Fischer, Erich M.; Lange, StefanBias adjustment is often a necessity in estimating climate impacts because impact models usually rely on unbiased climate information, a requirement that climate model outputs rarely fulfil. Most currently used statistical bias-adjustment methods adjust each climate variable separately, even though impacts usually depend on multiple potentially dependent variables. Human heat stress, for instance, depends on temperature and relative humidity, two variables that are often strongly correlated. Whether univariate bias-adjustment methods effectively improve estimates of impacts that depend on multiple drivers is largely unknown, and the lack of long-term impact data prevents a direct comparison between model outputs and observations for many climate-related impacts. Here we use two hazard indicators, heat stress and a simple fire risk indicator, as proxies for more sophisticated impact models. We show that univariate bias-adjustment methods such as univariate quantile mapping often cannot effectively reduce biases in multivariate hazard estimates. In some cases, it even increases biases. These cases typically occur (i) when hazards depend equally strongly on more than one climatic driver, (ii) when models exhibit biases in the dependence structure of drivers and (iii) when univariate biases are relatively small. Using a perfect model approach, we further quantify the uncertainty in bias-adjusted hazard indicators due to internal variability and show how imperfect bias adjustment can amplify this uncertainty. Both issues can be addressed successfully with a statistical bias adjustment that corrects the multivariate dependence structure in addition to the marginal distributions of the climate drivers. Our results suggest that currently many modeled climate impacts are associated with uncertainties related to the choice of bias adjustment. We conclude that in cases where impacts depend on multiple dependent climate variables these uncertainties can be reduced using statistical bias-adjustment approaches that correct the variables' multivariate dependence structure. © 2019 Copernicus GmbH. All rights reserved.
- ItemThe effect of overshooting 1.5 °C global warming on the mass loss of the Greenland ice sheet(Göttingen : Copernicus Publ., 2018) Rückamp, Martin; Falk, Ulrike; Frieler, Katja; Lange, Stefan; Humbert, AngelikaSea-level rise associated with changing climate is expected to pose a major challenge for societies. Based on the efforts of COP21 to limit global warming to 2.0 ∘C or even 1.5 ∘C by the end of the 21st century (Paris Agreement), we simulate the future contribution of the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) to sea-level change under the low emission Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 2.6 scenario. The Ice Sheet System Model (ISSM) with higher-order approximation is used and initialized with a hybrid approach of spin-up and data assimilation. For three general circulation models (GCMs: HadGEM2-ES, IPSL-CM5A-LR, MIROC5) the projections are conducted up to 2300 with forcing fields for surface mass balance (SMB) and ice surface temperature (Ts) computed by the surface energy balance model of intermediate complexity (SEMIC). The projected sea-level rise ranges between 21–38 mm by 2100 and 36–85 mm by 2300. According to the three GCMs used, global warming will exceed 1.5 ∘C early in the 21st century. The RCP2.6 peak and decline scenario is therefore manually adjusted in another set of experiments to suppress the 1.5 ∘C overshooting effect. These scenarios show a sea-level contribution that is on average about 38 % and 31 % less by 2100 and 2300, respectively. For some experiments, the rate of mass loss in the 23rd century does not exclude a stable ice sheet in the future. This is due to a spatially integrated SMB that remains positive and reaches values similar to the present day in the latter half of the simulation period. Although the mean SMB is reduced in the warmer climate, a future steady-state ice sheet with lower surface elevation and hence volume might be possible. Our results indicate that uncertainties in the projections stem from the underlying GCM climate data used to calculate the surface mass balance. However, the RCP2.6 scenario will lead to significant changes in the GrIS, including elevation changes of up to 100 m. The sea-level contribution estimated in this study may serve as a lower bound for the RCP2.6 scenario, as the currently observed sea-level rise is not reached in any of the experiments; this is attributed to processes (e.g. ocean forcing) not yet represented by the model, but proven to play a major role in GrIS mass loss.
- ItemProjecting Exposure to Extreme Climate Impact Events Across Six Event Categories and Three Spatial Scales(Hoboken, NJ : Wiley-Blackwell, 2020) Lange, Stefan; Volkholz, Jan; Geiger, Tobias; Zhao, Fang; Vega, Iliusi; Veldkamp, Ted; Reyer, Christopher P.O.; Warszawski, Lila; Huber, Veronika; Jägermeyr, Jonas; Schewe, Jacob; Bresch, David N.; Büchner, Matthias; Chang, Jinfeng; Ciais, Philippe; Dury, Marie; Emanuel, Kerry; Folberth, Christian; Gerten, Dieter; Gosling, Simon N.; Grillakis, Manolis; Hanasaki, Naota; Henrot, Alexandra-Jane; Hickler, Thomas; Honda, Yasushi; Ito, Akihiko; Khabarov, Nikolay; Koutroulis, Aristeidis; Liu, Wenfeng; Müller, Christoph; Nishina, Kazuya; Ostberg, Sebastian; Müller Schmied, Hannes; Seneviratne, Sonia I.; Stacke, Tobias; Steinkamp, Jörg; Thiery, Wim; Wada, Yoshihide; Willner, Sven; Yang, Hong; Yoshikawa, Minoru; Yue, Chao; Frieler, KatjaThe extent and impact of climate-related extreme events depend on the underlying meteorological, hydrological, or climatological drivers as well as on human factors such as land use or population density. Here we quantify the pure effect of historical and future climate change on the exposure of land and population to extreme climate impact events using an unprecedentedly large ensemble of harmonized climate impact simulations from the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project phase 2b. Our results indicate that global warming has already more than doubled both the global land area and the global population annually exposed to all six categories of extreme events considered: river floods, tropical cyclones, crop failure, wildfires, droughts, and heatwaves. Global warming of 2°C relative to preindustrial conditions is projected to lead to a more than fivefold increase in cross-category aggregate exposure globally. Changes in exposure are unevenly distributed, with tropical and subtropical regions facing larger increases than higher latitudes. The largest increases in overall exposure are projected for the population of South Asia. ©2020. The Authors.
- ItemWFDE5: Bias-adjusted ERA5 reanalysis data for impact studies(Katlenburg-Lindau : Copernics Publications, 2020) Cucchi, Marco; Weedon, Graham P.; Amici, Alessandro; Bellouin, Nicolas; Lange, Stefan; Müller Schmied, Hannes; Hersbach, Hans; Buontempo, CarloThe WFDE5 dataset has been generated using the WATCH Forcing Data (WFD) methodology applied to surface meteorological variables from the ERA5 reanalysis. The WFDEI dataset had previously been generated by applying the WFD methodology to ERA-Interim. The WFDE5 is provided at 0.5 spatial resolution but has higher temporal resolution (hourly) compared to WFDEI (3-hourly). It also has higher spatial variability since it was generated by aggregation of the higher-resolution ERA5 rather than by interpolation of the lower-resolution ERA-Interim data. Evaluation against meteorological observations at 13 globally distributed FLUXNET2015 sites shows that, on average, WFDE5 has lower mean absolute error and higher correlation than WFDEI for all variables. Bias-adjusted monthly precipitation totals of WFDE5 result in more plausible global hydrological water balance components when analysed in an uncalibrated hydrological model (WaterGAP) than with the use of raw ERA5 data for model forcing. The dataset, which can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.20d54e34 (C3S, 2020b), is distributed by the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) through its Climate Data Store (CDS, C3S, 2020a) and currently spans from the start of January 1979 to the end of 2018. The dataset has been produced using a number of CDS Toolbox applications, whose source code is available with the data - allowing users to regenerate part of the dataset or apply the same approach to other data. Future updates are expected spanning from 1950 to the most recent year. A sample of the complete dataset, which covers the whole of the year 2016, is accessible without registration to the CDS at https://doi.org/10.21957/935p-cj60 (Cucchi et al., 2020). © Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
- ItemThe PROFOUND Database for evaluating vegetation models and simulating climate impacts on European forests(Katlenburg-Lindau : Copernics Publications, 2020) Reyer, Christopher P.O.; Silveyra Gonzalez, Ramiro; Dolos, Klara; Hartig, Florian; Hauf, Ylva; Noack, Matthias; Lasch-Born, Petra; Rötzer, Thomas; Pretzsch, Hans; Meesenburg, Henning; Fleck, Stefan; Wagner, Markus; Bolte, Andreas; Sanders, Tanja G.M.; Kolari, Pasi; Mäkelä, Annikki; Vesala, Timo; Mammarella, Ivan; Pumpanen, Jukka; Collalti, Alessio; Trotta, Carlo; Matteucci, Giorgio; D'Andrea, Ettore; Foltýnová, Lenka; Krejza, Jan; Ibrom, Andreas; Pilegaard, Kim; Loustau, Denis; Bonnefond, Jean-Marc; Berbigier, Paul; Picart, Delphine; Lafont, Sébastien; Dietze, Michael; Cameron, David; Vieno, Massimo; Tian, Hanqin; Palacios-Orueta, Alicia; Cicuendez, Victor; Recuero, Laura; Wiese, Klaus; Büchner, Matthias; Lange, Stefan; Volkholz, Jan; Kim, Hyungjun; Horemans, Joanna A.; Bohn, Friedrich; Steinkamp, Jörg; Chikalanov, Alexander; Weedon, Graham P.; Sheffield, Justin; Babst, Flurin; Vega del Valle, Iliusi; Suckow, Felicitas; Martel, Simon; Mahnken, Mats; Gutsch, Martin; Frieler, KatjaProcess-based vegetation models are widely used to predict local and global ecosystem dynamics and climate change impacts. Due to their complexity, they require careful parameterization and evaluation to ensure that projections are accurate and reliable. The PROFOUND Database (PROFOUND DB) provides a wide range of empirical data on European forests to calibrate and evaluate vegetation models that simulate climate impacts at the forest stand scale. A particular advantage of this database is its wide coverage of multiple data sources at different hierarchical and temporal scales, together with environmental driving data as well as the latest climate scenarios. Specifically, the PROFOUND DB provides general site descriptions, soil, climate, CO2, nitrogen deposition, tree and forest stand level, and remote sensing data for nine contrasting forest stands distributed across Europe. Moreover, for a subset of five sites, time series of carbon fluxes, atmospheric heat conduction and soil water are also available. The climate and nitrogen deposition data contain several datasets for the historic period and a wide range of future climate change scenarios following the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0, RCP8.5). We also provide pre-industrial climate simulations that allow for model runs aimed at disentangling the contribution of climate change to observed forest productivity changes. The PROFOUND DB is available freely as a “SQLite” relational database or “ASCII” flat file version (at https://doi.org/10.5880/PIK.2020.006/; Reyer et al., 2020). The data policies of the individual contributing datasets are provided in the metadata of each data file. The PROFOUND DB can also be accessed via the ProfoundData R package (https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ProfoundData; Silveyra Gonzalez et al., 2020), which provides basic functions to explore, plot and extract the data for model set-up, calibration and evaluation.