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]

Quantifying and separating different sources of uncertainty helps to improve the understanding of the projected effects of climate change and can inform decision‐making in adaptation planning. This paper (1) evaluated four process‐based crop models; (2) assessed the effects of climate change on maize yield using climate change outputs from seven global climate models (GCMs) under three representative concentration pathways (RCPs); and (3) disaggregated the contributions of multiple crop models, GCMs and RCPs to overall uncertainty. All four models captured more than 80% of the variation in days to silking, maturity and yield, indicating reasonably reproduced observations. Similarly, the root mean square errors were moderate for days to silking and maturity (fewer than 4 days) and yield (0.5–0.7 t/ha). Overall, the results indicate that the models could assess grain yield at the study sites reasonably well. The results of the multiple models ensemble indicate that the maize yield will decrease by 9–11% with a probability of 72–80% on average during the period 2010–2039 relative to the baseline (1976–2005). The uncertainty in the maize‐yield simulations might arise mostly from the GCM models, followed by the crop models and RCPs, the contribution of which could be neglected relative to the other factors. Therefore, the use of a multiple crop model and a GCM ensemble is advisable in order to account properly for uncertainties in crop assessments. The uncertainty in maize‐yield simulations might arise mostly from global climate models (GCMs), followed by crop models and representative concentration pathways (RCPs), the contribution of which could be neglected relative to the other factors. Therefore, the use of a multiple crop model and a GCM ensemble is advisable in order to account properly for uncertainties in crop assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]