ALBERT

Description: We demonstrate both analytically and with a modelling example that cross-validation of free-running bias-corrected climate change simulations against observations is misleading. The underlying reasoning is as follows: a cross-validation can have in principle two outcomes. A negative (in the sense of not rejecting a null hypothesis), if the residual bias in the validation period after bias correction vanishes; and a positive, if the residual bias in the validation period after bias correction is large. It can be shown analytically that the residual bias depends solely on the difference between the simulated and observed change between calibration and validation periods. This change, however, depends mainly on the realizations of internal variability in the observations and climate model. As a consequence, the outcome of a cross-validation is also dominated by internal variability, and does not allow for any conclusion about the sensibility of a bias correction. In particular, a sensible bias correction may be rejected (false positive) and a non-sensible bias correction may be accepted (false negative). We therefore propose to avoid cross-validation when evaluating bias correction of free-running bias-corrected climate change simulations against observations. Instead, one should evaluate non-calibrated temporal, spatial and process-based aspects.

Description: Much of our knowledge about future changes in precipitation relies on global (GCMs) and/or regional climate models (RCMs) that have resolutions which are much coarser than typical spatial scales of precipitation, particularly extremes. The major problems with these projections are both climate model biases and the gap between gridbox and point scale. Wong et al. (2014) developed a model to jointly bias correct and downscale precipitation at daily scales. This approach, however, relied on pairwise correspondence between predictor and predictand for calibration, and, thus, on nudged simulations which are rarely available. Here we present an extension of this approach that separates the downscaling from the bias correction and in principle is applicable to free-running GCMs/RCMs. In a first step, we bias correct RCM-simulated precipitation against gridded observations at the same scale using a parametric quantile mapping (QMgrid) approach. In a second step, we bridge the scale gap: we predict local variance employing a regression-based model with coarse-scale precipitation as a predictor. The regression model is calibrated between gridded and point-scale (station) observations. For this concept we present one specific implementation, although the optimal model may differ for each studied location. To correct the whole distribution including extreme tails we apply a mixture distribution of a gamma distribution for the precipitation mass and a generalized Pareto distribution for the extreme tail in the first step. For the second step a vector generalized linear gamma model is employed. For evaluation we adopt the perfect predictor experimental setup of VALUE. We also compare our method to the classical QM as it is usually applied, i.e., between RCM and point scale (QMpoint). Precipitation is in most cases improved by (parts of) our method across different European climates. The method generally performs better in summer than in winter and in winter best in the Mediterranean region, with a mild winter climate, and worst for continental winter climate in Mid- and eastern Europe or Scandinavia. While QMpoint performs similarly (better for continental winter) to our combined method in reducing the bias and representing heavy precipitation, it is not capable of correctly modeling point-scale spatial dependence of summer precipitation. A strength of this two-step method is that the best combination of bias correction and downscaling methods can be selected. This implies that the concept can be extended to a wide range of method combinations.

Description: We demonstrate both analytically and with a modelling example that cross-validation of free running bias-corrected climate change simulations against observations is misleading. The underlying reasoning is as follows: a cross-validation can have in principle two outcomes. A negative (in the sense of not rejecting a Null hypothesis), if the residual bias in the validation period after bias correction vanishes; and a positive, if the residual bias in the validation period after bias correction is large. It can be shown analytically that the residual bias depends solely on the difference between the simulated and observed change between calibration and validation period. These changes, however, depend mainly on the realisations of internal variability in the observations and climate model. As a consequence, also the outcome of a cross-validation is dominated by internal variability, and does not allow for any conclusion about the sensibility of a bias correction. In particular, a sensible bias correction may be rejected (false positive) and a non-sensible bias correction may be accepted (false negative). We therefore propose to avoid cross-validation when evaluating bias correction of free running bias-corrected climate change simulations against observations. Instead, one should evaluate temporal, spatial and process-based aspects.

Description: Compound events are multivariate extreme events in which the individual contributing variables may not be extreme themselves, but their joint – dependent – occurrence causes an extreme impact. The conventional univariate statistical analysis cannot give accurate information regarding the multivariate nature of these events. We develop a conceptual model, implemented via pair-copula constructions, which allows for the quantification of the risk associated with compound events in present day and future climate, as well as the uncertainty estimates around such risk. The model includes meteorological predictors which provide insight into both the involved physical processes, and the temporal variability of CEs. Moreover, this model provides multivariate statistical downscaling of compound events. Downscaling of compound events is required to extend their risk assessment to the past or future climate, where climate models either do not simulate realistic values of the local variables driving the events, or do not simulate them at all. Based on the developed model, we study compound floods, i.e. joint storm surge and high river runoff, in Ravenna (Italy). To explicitly quantify the risk, we define the impact of compound floods as a function of sea and river levels. We use meteorological predictors to extend the analysis to the past, and get a more robust risk analysis. We quantify the uncertainties of the risk analysis observing that they are very large due to the shortness of the available data, though this may also be the case in other studies where they have not been estimated. Ignoring the dependence between sea and river levels would result in an underestimation of risk, in particular the expected return period of the highest compound flood observed increases from about 20 to 32 years when switching from the dependent to the independent case.

Description: Compound events (CEs) are multivariate extreme events in which the individual contributing variables may not be extreme themselves, but their joint – dependent – occurrence causes an extreme impact. Conventional univariate statistical analysis cannot give accurate information regarding the multivariate nature of these events. We develop a conceptual model, implemented via pair-copula constructions, which allows for the quantification of the risk associated with compound events in present-day and future climate, as well as the uncertainty estimates around such risk. The model includes predictors, which could represent for instance meteorological processes that provide insight into both the involved physical mechanisms and the temporal variability of compound events. Moreover, this model enables multivariate statistical downscaling of compound events. Downscaling is required to extend the compound events' risk assessment to the past or future climate, where climate models either do not simulate realistic values of the local variables driving the events or do not simulate them at all. Based on the developed model, we study compound floods, i.e. joint storm surge and high river runoff, in Ravenna (Italy). To explicitly quantify the risk, we define the impact of compound floods as a function of sea and river levels. We use meteorological predictors to extend the analysis to the past, and get a more robust risk analysis. We quantify the uncertainties of the risk analysis, observing that they are very large due to the shortness of the available data, though this may also be the case in other studies where they have not been estimated. Ignoring the dependence between sea and river levels would result in an underestimation of risk; in particular, the expected return period of the highest compound flood observed increases from about 20 to 32 years when switching from the dependent to the independent case.

Description: We present an analysis of daily extreme precipitation events for the extended winter season (October–March) at 20 Mediterranean coastal sites covering the period 1950–2006. The heavy tailed behaviour of precipitation extremes and estimated return levels, including associated uncertainties, are derived applying a procedure based on the Generalized Pareto Distribution, in combination with recently developed methods. Precipitation extremes have an important contribution to make seasonal totals (approximately 60% for all series). Three stations (one in the western Mediterranean and the others in the eastern basin) have a 5-year return level above 100 mm, while the lowest value (estimated for two Italian series) is equal to 58 mm. As for the 50-year return level, an Italian station (Genoa) has the highest value of 264 mm, while the other values range from 82 to 200 mm. Furthermore, six series (from stations located in France, Italy, Greece, and Cyprus) show a significant negative tendency in the probability of observing an extreme event. The relationship between extreme precipitation events and the large scale atmospheric circulation at the upper, mid and low troposphere is investigated by using NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data. A 2-step classification procedure identifies three significant anomaly patterns both for the western-central and eastern part of the Mediterranean basin. In the western Mediterranean, the anomalous southwesterly surface to mid-tropospheric flow is connected with enhanced moisture transport from the Atlantic. During ≥5-year return level events, the subtropical jet stream axis is aligned with the African coastline and interacts with the eddy-driven jet stream. This is connected with enhanced large scale ascending motions, instability and leads to the development of severe precipitation events. For the eastern Mediterranean extreme precipitation events, the identified anomaly patterns suggest warm air advection connected with anomalous ascent motions and an increase of the low- to mid-tropospheric moisture. Furthermore, the jet stream position (during ≥5-year return level events) supports the eastern basin being in a divergence area, where ascent motions are favoured. Our results contribute to an improved understanding of daily precipitation extremes in the cold season and associated large scale atmospheric features.