Search

This paper evaluated and compared the performance of a statistical downscaling method and a dynamical downscaling method to simulate the spatial–temporal rainfall distribution. Outputs from RegCM4 Regional Climate Model (RCM) and the CanESM2 Atmosphere–Ocean General Circulation Model (AOGCM) were selected for the data scarce Gwadar‐Ormara basin, Pakistan. The evaluation was based on the climatological average and standard deviation for historic (1971–2000) and future (2041–2070) time periods under Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios. The performance evaluation showed that statistical downscaling is preferred to simulate and project rainfall patterns in the study area. Additionally, the Statistical DownScaling Model (SDSM) showed low R2 values in calibration and validation of the simulations with respect to observed data for the historic period. Overall, SDSM generated satisfactory results in simulating the monthly rainfall cycle of the entire basin. In this study, RegCM4 showed large rainfall errors and missed one rainfall season in the historic period. This study also explored whether the grid‐based rainfall time series of the Asian Precipitation—Highly Resolved Observational Daily Integration Towards Evaluation (APHRODITE) dataset could be used to enlarge and complement the sample of in situ observed rainfall time series. A spatial correlogram was used for observed and APHRODITE rainfall data to assess the consistency between the two data sources, which resulted in rejecting APHRODITE data. For the future time period (2041–2070) under RCPs 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios, rainfall projections did not show significant difference for both downscaling approaches. This may relate to the driving model (CanESM2 AOGCM) and not necessarily suggests poor performance of downscaling; either statistical or dynamical. Hence, the study recommends evaluating a multi‐model ensemble including other GCMs and RCMs for the same area of study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We assess the impact of three bias correction approaches on present day means and extremes, and climate change signal, for six climate variables (precipitation, minimum and maximum temperature, radiation, vapour pressure and mean sea level pressure) from dynamically downscaled climate simulations over Queensland, Australia. Results show that all bias‐correction methods are effective at removing systematic model biases, however the results are variable and season‐dependent. Importantly, our results are based on fully independent cross‐validation, an advantage over similar studies. Linear scaling preserves the climate change signals for temperature, while quantile mapping and the distribution‐based transfer function modify the climate change signal and patterns of change. The Perkins score for all the values above the 95th percentile and below the 5th percentile was used to evaluate how well the climate model matches the observational data. Bias correction improved Perkins score for extremes for some variables and seasons. We rank the bias‐correction methods based on the Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE) score calculated during the validation period. We find that linear scaling and empirical quantile mapping are the best approaches for Queensland for mean climatology. On average, bias correction led to an improvement in the KGE score of 23% annually. However, in terms of extreme values, quantile mapping and statistical distribution‐based transfer function approaches perform best, and linear scaling tends to perform worst. Our results show that, except linear scaling, all approaches impact the climate change signal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An emergent consequence of climate change is its potential impacts on transatlantic flight routes and durations, with studies suggesting that future optimal paths will likely lead to decreased (increased) eastbound (westbound) journey times. However, these earlier works all rely on a class of flight planning algorithms (based on the so‐called 'shooting method') that are fundamentally different to those typically used by the aviation industry (based on the so‐called 'network method'). To help resolve any ambiguities associated with these differences and better align both the academic and operational communities, we have therefore conducted an evaluation of methods of estimating time‐optimal flight routes to relate the result obtained from the shooting method with the result obtained from the network method, using identical data from an ensemble of eight different climate models included within the CMIP5 project. Our findings suggest that, contrary to the existing literature, journey times will likely be shorter, irrespective of direction of travel and season, although the magnitude of this difference is negligible given the typical duration of transatlantic flights. Trajectory prediction (TP) results are largely dependent on the characteristics of the ensemble, their method of generation, the projected climate scenario and the temporal periods considered. Importantly, we conclude the choice of TP models is not a crucial factor in assessing the impact of climate change on flight durations—as long as this sample size (i.e., number of trajectories used in deriving statistics) is large. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]