An Evaluation of Dynamical Downscaling Methods Used to Project Regional Climate Change

Abstract In the past decade, dynamical downscaling using “pseudo‐global‐warming” (PGW) techniques has been applied frequently to project regional climate change. Such techniques generate signals by adding mean global climate model (GCM)‐simulated climate change signals in temperature, moisture, and circulation to lateral and surface boundary conditions derived from reanalysis. An alternative to PGW is to downscale GCM data directly. This technique should be advantageous, especially for simulation of extremes, since it incorporates the GCM's full spectrum of changing synoptic‐scale dynamics in the regional solution. Here, we test this assumption, by comparing simulations in Europe and Western North America. We find that for warming and changes in temperature extremes, PGW often produces similar results to direct downscaling in both regions. For mean and extreme precipitation changes, PGW generally also performs surprisingly well in many cases. Moisture budget analysis in the Western North America domain reveals why. Large fractions of the downscaled hydroclimate changes arise from mean changes in large‐scale thermodynamics and circulation, that is, increases in temperature, moisture, and winds, included in PGW by design. The one component PGW may have difficulty with is the contribution from changes in synoptic‐scale variability. When this component is large, PGW performance could be degraded. Global analysis of GCM data shows there are regions where it is large or dominant. Hence, our results provide a road map to identify, through GCM analyses, the circumstances when PGW would not be expected to accurately regionalize GCM climate signals.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres
Published
2024-12-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jd040591
Citations
15
Primary Topic
Climate variability and models
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.24
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

An Evaluation of Dynamical Downscaling Methods Used to Project Regional Climate Change

Yun Qian, Paul Ullrich, Alex D. Hall, Nikolina Ban et al.
15 citations
Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres
Climate variability and models
4.24
article

An Evaluation of Dynamical Downscaling Methods Used to Project Regional Climate Change

Yun Qian, Paul Ullrich, Alex D. Hall, Nikolina Ban, Jesse Norris, Nicholas Siler, Stefan Rahimi, Andreas F. Prein, Kevin A. Reed, Lai-Yung Ruby Leung
article en
15 citations

Abstract

Abstract In the past decade, dynamical downscaling using “pseudo‐global‐warming” (PGW) techniques has been applied frequently to project regional climate change. Such techniques generate signals by adding mean global climate model (GCM)‐simulated climate change signals in temperature, moisture, and circulation to lateral and surface boundary conditions derived from reanalysis. An alternative to PGW is to downscale GCM data directly. This technique should be advantageous, especially for simulation of extremes, since it incorporates the GCM's full spectrum of changing synoptic‐scale dynamics in the regional solution. Here, we test this assumption, by comparing simulations in Europe and Western North America. We find that for warming and changes in temperature extremes, PGW often produces similar results to direct downscaling in both regions. For mean and extreme precipitation changes, PGW generally also performs surprisingly well in many cases. Moisture budget analysis in the Western North America domain reveals why. Large fractions of the downscaled hydroclimate changes arise from mean changes in large‐scale thermodynamics and circulation, that is, increases in temperature, moisture, and winds, included in PGW by design. The one component PGW may have difficulty with is the contribution from changes in synoptic‐scale variability. When this component is large, PGW performance could be degraded. Global analysis of GCM data shows there are regions where it is large or dominant. Hence, our results provide a road map to identify, through GCM analyses, the circumstances when PGW would not be expected to accurately regionalize GCM climate signals.

Journal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresVol. 129(24)
NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (US), Oregon State University (US), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (US), University of California, Los Angeles (US), Universität Innsbruck (AT), Stony Brook University (US), University of California, Davis (US)
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Climate variability and models
4.24
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.