Search

We investigate the influence of bias correction of Global Climate Models (GCMs) prior to dynamical downscaling using regional climate models (RCMs), on the change in climate projected. We use 4 GCMs which are bias corrected against ERA-Interim re-analysis as a surrogate truth, and carry out bias corrected and non-bias corrected simulations over the CORDEX Australasia domain using the Weather Research and Forecasting model. Our results show that when considering the effect of bias correction on current and future climate separately, bias correction has a large influence on precipitation and temperature, especially for models which are known to have large biases. However, when considering the change in climate, i.e the Δ change (future minus current), we found that while differences between bias-corrected and non-corrected RCM simulations can be substantial (e.g. more than 1 ∘ C for temperatures) these differences are generally smaller than the models' inter-annual variability. Overall, averaged across all variables, bias corrected boundary conditions produce an overall reduction in the range, standard deviation and mean absolute deviation of the change in climate projected by the 4 models tested, over 61.5%, 62% and 58% of land area, with a larger reduction for precipitation as compared to temperature indices. In addition, we show that changes in the Δ change for DJF tasmax are broadly linked to precipitation changes and consequently soil moisture and surface sensible heat flux and changes in the Δ changefor JJA tasmin are linked to downward longwave heat flux. This study shows that bias correction of GCMs against re-analysis prior to dynamical downscaling can increase our confidence in projected future changes produced by downscaled ensembles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regional climate models (RCMs) are used to dynamically downscale global climate models (GCMs) to provide high-resolution projections of future climate change to better inform policy and decision making at the regional scale. However, biases from GCMs are transferred to RCMs and this can limit the usefulness of the regional climate projections. This paper investigates the influence of bias correcting 4 GCMs from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 3, for regional climate simulations over the CORDEX-Australasia domain using Weather Research and Forecasting. The GCM outputs are bias corrected against ERA-Interim reanalysis as a surrogate truth. Results show that over decadal time scales bias correction removes large systematic precipitation and temperature biases. However, bias correction also introduced biases where there were none, introduced biases of the opposite sign, or enhanced existing biases in other regions in some instances. The dynamical mechanisms driving the changes in the biases are explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Community Atmosphere Biosphere Land Exchange (CABLE) model is a third‐generation land surface model (LSM). CABLE is commonly used as a stand‐alone LSM, coupled to the Australian Community Climate and Earth Systems Simulator global climate model and coupled to the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model for regional applications. Here, we evaluate an updated version of CABLE within a WRF physics ensemble over the COordinated Regional Downscaling EXperiment (CORDEX) AustralAsia domain. The ensemble consists of different cumulus, radiation and planetary boundary layer (PBL) schemes. Simulations are carried out within the NASA Unified WRF modeling framework, NU‐WRF. Our analysis did not identify one configuration that consistently performed the best for all diagnostics and regions. Of the cumulus parameterizations the Grell‐Freitas cumulus scheme consistently overpredicted precipitation, while the new Tiedtke scheme was the best in simulating the timing of precipitation events. For the radiation schemes, the RRTMG radiation scheme had a general warm bias. For the PBL schemes, the YSU scheme had a warm bias, and the MYJ PBL scheme a cool bias. Results are strongly dependent on the region of interest, with the northern tropics and southwest Western Australia being more sensitive to the choice of physics options compared to southeastern Australia which showed less overall variation and overall better performance across the ensemble. Comparisons with simulations using the Unified Noah LSM showed that CABLE in NU‐WRF has a more realistic simulation of evapotranspiration when compared to GLEAM estimates. Key Points: We identify WRF physics configurations that perform well with CABLESimulation of latent heat fluxes over Australia are more skillful with WRF‐LIS‐CABLE than WRF‐Noah [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

NARCliM2.0 comprises two Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) regional climate models (RCMs) downscaling five CMIP6 global climate models contributing to the Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment over Australasia at 20 km resolution, and south-east Australia at 4 km convection-permitting resolution. We first describe NARCliM2.0's design, including selecting two, definitive RCMs via testing seventy-eight RCMs using different parameterisations for planetary boundary layer, microphysics, cumulus, radiation, and land surface model (LSM). We then assess NARCliM2.0's skill in simulating the historical climate versus CMIP3-forced NARCliM1.0 and CMIP5-forced NARCliM1.5 RCMs and compare differences in future climate projections. RCMs using the new Noah-MP LSM in WRF with default settings confer substantial improvements in simulating temperature variables versus RCMs using Noah-Unified. Noah-MP confers smaller improvements in simulating precipitation, except for large improvements over Australia's southeast coast. Activating Noah-MP's dynamic vegetation cover and/or runoff options primarily improve simulation of minimum temperature. NARCliM2.0 confers large reductions in maximum temperature bias versus NARCliM1.0 and 1.5 (1.x), with small absolute biases of ~0.5 K over many regions versus over ~2 K for NARCliM1.x. NARCliM2.0 reduces wet biases versus NARCliM1.x by as much as 50 %, but retains dry biases over Australia's north. NARCliM2.0 is biased warmer for minimum temperature versus NARCliM1.5 which is partly inherited from stronger warm biases in CMIP6 versus CMIP5 GCMs. Under shared socioeconomic pathway (SSP)3-7.0, NARCliM2.0 projects ~3 K warming by 2060–79 over inland regions versus ~2.5 K over coastal regions. NARCliM2.0-SSP3-7.0 projects dry futures over most of Australia, except for wet futures over Australia's north and parts of western Australia which are largest in summer. NARCliM2.0-SSP1-2.6 projects dry changes over Australia with only few exceptions. NARCliM2.0 is a valuable resource for assessing climate change impacts on societies and natural systems and informing resilience planning by reducing model biases versus earlier NARCliM generations and providing more up-to-date future climate projections utilising CMIP6. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding regional climate model (RCM) capabilities to simulate current climate informs model development and climate change assessments. This is the first evaluation of the NARCliM2.0 ensemble of Weather Forecasting and Research RCMs driven by ECMWF Reanalysis v5 (ERA5) reanalyses over Australia at 20 km resolution contributing to CORDEX-CMIP6 Australasia, and south-eastern Australia at convection-permitting resolution (4 km). RCM performance in simulating mean and extreme maximum, minimum temperature and precipitation is evaluated against observations at annual, seasonal, and daily timescales, and compared to corresponding performances of previous-generation CORDEX-CMIP5 Australasia ERA-Interim-driven RCMs. ERA5-RCMs substantially reduce cold biases for mean and extreme maximum temperature versus ERA-Interim-RCMs, with small mean absolute biases (0.54 K; 0.81 K, respectively), but produce no improvements for minimum temperature. ERA5-RCM precipitation simulations show lower bias magnitudes versus ERA-Interim-RCMs, though dry biases remain over monsoonal northern Australia and extreme precipitation simulation improvements are principally evident at convection-permitting 4 km resolution. Although ERA5 reanalysis data confer improvements over ERA-Interim, only improvements in precipitation simulation by ERA5-RCMs are attributable to the ERA5 driving data, with RCM improvements for maximum temperature more attributable to model design choices, suggesting improved driving data do not guarantee all RCM performance improvements, with potential implications for CMIP6-forced dynamical downscaling. This evaluation shows that NARCliM2.0 ERA5-RCMs provide valuable reference simulations for upcoming CMIP6-forced downscaling over CORDEX-Australasia and are informative datasets for climate impact studies. Using a subset of these RCMs for simulating CMIP6-forced climate projections over CORDEX-Australasia and/or at convection-permitting scales could yield tangible benefits in simulating regional climate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]