Bias correction methods are used to adjust simulations from global and regional climate models to use them in informed decision-making. Here we introduce a semi-parametric quantile mapping (SPQM) method to bias-correct daily precipitation. This method uses a parametric probability distribution to describe observations and an empirical distribution for simulations. Bias-correction techniques typically adjust the bias between observation and historical simulations to correct projections. The SPQM however corrects simulations based only on observations assuming the detrended simulations have the same distribution as the observations. Thus, the bias-corrected simulations preserve the climate change signal, including changes in the magnitude and probability dry, and guarantee a smooth transition from observations to future simulations. The results are compared with popular quantile mapping techniques, that is, the quantile delta mapping (QDM) and the statistical transformation of the CDF using splines (SSPLINE). The SPQM performed well in reproducing the observed statistics, marginal distribution, and wet and dry spells. Comparatively, it performed at least equally well as the QDM and SSPLINE, specifically in reproducing observed wet spells and extreme quantiles. The method is further tested in a basin-scale region. The spatial variability and statistics of the observed precipitation are reproduced well in the bias-corrected simulations. Overall, the SPQM is easy to apply, yet robust in bias-correcting daily precipitation simulations.

Bias correction methods are used to adjust simulations from global and regional climate models to use them in informed decision-making. Here we introduce a semi-parametric quantile mapping (SPQM) method to bias-correct daily precipitation. This method uses a parametric probability distribution to describe observations and an empirical distribution for simulations. Bias-correction techniques typically adjust the bias between observation and historical simulations to correct projections. The SPQM however corrects simulations based only on observations assuming the detrended simulations have the same distribution as the observations. Thus, the bias-corrected simulations preserve the climate change signal, including changes in the magnitude and probability dry, and guarantee a smooth transition from observations to future simulations. The results are compared with popular quantile mapping techniques, that is, the quantile delta mapping (QDM) and the statistical transformation of the CDF using splines (SSPLINE). The SPQM performed well in reproducing the observed statistics, marginal distribution, and wet and dry spells. Comparatively, it performed at least equally well as the QDM and SSPLINE, specifically in reproducing observed wet spells and extreme quantiles. The method is further tested in a basin-scale region. The spatial variability and statistics of the observed precipitation are reproduced well in the bias-corrected simulations. Overall, the SPQM is easy to apply, yet robust in bias-correcting daily precipitation simulations.

Bias correction methods are used to adjust simulations from global and regional climate models to use them in informed decision-making. Here we introduce a semi-parametric quantile mapping (SPQM) method to bias-correct daily precipitation. This method uses a parametric probability distribution to describe observations and an empirical distribution for simulations. Bias-correction techniques typically adjust the bias between observation and historical simulations to correct projections. The SPQM however corrects simulations based only on observations assuming the detrended simulations have the same distribution as the observations. Thus, the bias-corrected simulations preserve the climate change signal, including changes in the magnitude and probability dry, and guarantee a smooth transition from observations to future simulations. The results are compared with popular quantile mapping techniques, that is, the quantile delta mapping (QDM) and the statistical transformation of the CDF using splines (SSPLINE). The SPQM performed well in reproducing the observed statistics, marginal distribution, and wet and dry spells. Comparatively, it performed at least equally well as the QDM and SSPLINE, specifically in reproducing observed wet spells and extreme quantiles. The method is further tested in a basin-scale region. The spatial variability and statistics of the observed precipitation are reproduced well in the bias-corrected simulations. Overall, the SPQM is easy to apply, yet robust in bias-correcting daily precipitation simulations.

Bias correction methods are used to adjust simulations from global and regional climate models to use them in informed decision-making. Here we introduce a semi-parametric quantile mapping (SPQM) method to bias-correct daily precipitation. This method uses a parametric probability distribution to describe observations and an empirical distribution for simulations. Bias-correction techniques typically adjust the bias between observation and historical simulations to correct projections. The SPQM however corrects simulations based only on observations assuming the detrended simulations have the same distribution as the observations. Thus, the bias-corrected simulations preserve the climate change signal, including changes in the magnitude and probability dry, and guarantee a smooth transition from observations to future simulations. The results are compared with popular quantile mapping techniques, that is, the quantile delta mapping (QDM) and the statistical transformation of the CDF using splines (SSPLINE). The SPQM performed well in reproducing the observed statistics, marginal distribution, and wet and dry spells. Comparatively, it performed at least equally well as the QDM and SSPLINE, specifically in reproducing observed wet spells and extreme quantiles. The method is further tested in a basin-scale region. The spatial variability and statistics of the observed precipitation are reproduced well in the bias-corrected simulations. Overall, the SPQM is easy to apply, yet robust in bias-correcting daily precipitation simulations.

Abstract Bias correction methods are used to adjust simulations from global and regional climate models to use them in informed decision‐making. Here we introduce a semi‐parametric quantile mapping (SPQM) method to bias‐correct daily precipitation. This method uses a parametric probability distribution to describe observations and an empirical distribution for simulations. Bias‐correction techniques typically adjust the bias between observation and historical simulations to correct projections. The SPQM however corrects simulations based only on observations assuming the detrended simulations have the same distribution as the observations. Thus, the bias‐corrected simulations preserve the climate change signal, including changes in the magnitude and probability dry, and guarantee a smooth transition from observations to future simulations. The results are compared with popular quantile mapping techniques, that is, the quantile delta mapping (QDM) and the statistical transformation of the CDF using splines (SSPLINE). The SPQM performed well in reproducing the observed statistics, marginal distribution, and wet and dry spells. Comparatively, it performed at least equally well as the QDM and SSPLINE, specifically in reproducing observed wet spells and extreme quantiles. The method is further tested in a basin‐scale region. The spatial variability and statistics of the observed precipitation are reproduced well in the bias‐corrected simulations. Overall, the SPQM is easy to apply, yet robust in bias‐correcting daily precipitation simulations.

Abstract Bias correction methods are used to adjust simulations from global and regional climate models to use them in informed decision‐making. Here we introduce a semi‐parametric quantile mapping (SPQM) method to bias‐correct daily precipitation. This method uses a parametric probability distribution to describe observations and an empirical distribution for simulations. Bias‐correction techniques typically adjust the bias between observation and historical simulations to correct projections. The SPQM however corrects simulations based only on observations assuming the detrended simulations have the same distribution as the observations. Thus, the bias‐corrected simulations preserve the climate change signal, including changes in the magnitude and probability dry, and guarantee a smooth transition from observations to future simulations. The results are compared with popular quantile mapping techniques, that is, the quantile delta mapping (QDM) and the statistical transformation of the CDF using splines (SSPLINE). The SPQM performed well in reproducing the observed statistics, marginal distribution, and wet and dry spells. Comparatively, it performed at least equally well as the QDM and SSPLINE, specifically in reproducing observed wet spells and extreme quantiles. The method is further tested in a basin‐scale region. The spatial variability and statistics of the observed precipitation are reproduced well in the bias‐corrected simulations. Overall, the SPQM is easy to apply, yet robust in bias‐correcting daily precipitation simulations.

Abstract Bias correction methods are used to adjust simulations from global and regional climate models to use them in informed decision‐making. Here we introduce a semi‐parametric quantile mapping (SPQM) method to bias‐correct daily precipitation. This method uses a parametric probability distribution to describe observations and an empirical distribution for simulations. Bias‐correction techniques typically adjust the bias between observation and historical simulations to correct projections. The SPQM however corrects simulations based only on observations assuming the detrended simulations have the same distribution as the observations. Thus, the bias‐corrected simulations preserve the climate change signal, including changes in the magnitude and probability dry, and guarantee a smooth transition from observations to future simulations. The results are compared with popular quantile mapping techniques, that is, the quantile delta mapping (QDM) and the statistical transformation of the CDF using splines (SSPLINE). The SPQM performed well in reproducing the observed statistics, marginal distribution, and wet and dry spells. Comparatively, it performed at least equally well as the QDM and SSPLINE, specifically in reproducing observed wet spells and extreme quantiles. The method is further tested in a basin‐scale region. The spatial variability and statistics of the observed precipitation are reproduced well in the bias‐corrected simulations. Overall, the SPQM is easy to apply, yet robust in bias‐correcting daily precipitation simulations.

Abstract Bias correction methods are used to adjust simulations from global and regional climate models to use them in informed decision‐making. Here we introduce a semi‐parametric quantile mapping (SPQM) method to bias‐correct daily precipitation. This method uses a parametric probability distribution to describe observations and an empirical distribution for simulations. Bias‐correction techniques typically adjust the bias between observation and historical simulations to correct projections. The SPQM however corrects simulations based only on observations assuming the detrended simulations have the same distribution as the observations. Thus, the bias‐corrected simulations preserve the climate change signal, including changes in the magnitude and probability dry, and guarantee a smooth transition from observations to future simulations. The results are compared with popular quantile mapping techniques, that is, the quantile delta mapping (QDM) and the statistical transformation of the CDF using splines (SSPLINE). The SPQM performed well in reproducing the observed statistics, marginal distribution, and wet and dry spells. Comparatively, it performed at least equally well as the QDM and SSPLINE, specifically in reproducing observed wet spells and extreme quantiles. The method is further tested in a basin‐scale region. The spatial variability and statistics of the observed precipitation are reproduced well in the bias‐corrected simulations. Overall, the SPQM is easy to apply, yet robust in bias‐correcting daily precipitation simulations.

<p>Climate models are the available tools to assess risks of extreme precipitation events due to climate change. Models simulating historical climate successfully are often reliable to simulate future climate. Here, we assess the performance of CMIP6 models in reproducing the observed annual maxima of daily precipitation (AMP) beyond the commonly used methods. This assessment takes three scales: (1) univariate comparison based on L-moments and relative difference measures; (2) bivariate comparison using Kernel densities of mean and L-variation, and of L-skewness and L-kurtosis, and (3) comparison of the entire distribution function using the Generalized Extreme Value () distribution coupled with a novel application of the Anderson-Darling Goodness-of-fit test. The results depict that 70% of simulations have mean and variation of AMP with a percentage difference within 10 from the observations. Also, the statistical shape properties, defining the frequency and magnitude of AMP, of simulations match well with observations. However, biases are observed in the mean and variation bivariate properties. Several models perform well with the HadGEM3-GC31-MM model performing well in all three scales when compared to the ground-based Global Precipitation Climatology (GPCC) data. Finally, the study highlights biases of CMIP6 models in simulating extreme precipitation in the Arctic, Tropics, arid and semi-arid regions.</p>

Extreme temperature is a major threat to urban populations; thus, it is crucial to understand future changes to plan adaptation and mitigation strategies. We assess historical and CMIP6 projected trends of minimum and maximum temperatures for the 18 most populated Canadian cities. Temperatures increase (on average 0.3°C/decade) in all cities during the historical period (1979–2014), with Prairie cities exhibiting lower rates (0.06°C/decade). Toronto (0.5°C/decade) and Montreal (0.7°C/decade) show high increasing trends in the observation period. Higher-elevation cities, among those with the same population, show slower increasing temperature rates compared to the coastal ones. Projections for cities in the Prairies show 12% more summer days compared to the other regions. The number of heat waves (HWs) increases for all cities, in both the historical and future periods; yet alarming increases are projected for Vancouver, Victoria, and Halifax from no HWs in the historical period to approximately 4 HWs/year on average, towards the end of 2100 for the SSP5–8.5. The cold waves reduce considerably for all cities in the historical period at a rate of 2 CWs/decade on average and are projected to further reduce by 50% compared to the observed period. • CMIP6 simulations for extreme temperature estimation of the largest Canadian cities. • Prairies' cities exhibit a lower rate of temperature increase compared to the cities in Great lakes in observation period. • Cities in Prairies are projected to have 12% more summer days than the rest of the cities. • The number of heat waves increases significantly, especially for Vancouver, Victoria, and Halifax. • Cold waves are expected to decrease by 50% in future.

Globally, extreme temperatures have severe impacts on the economy, human health, food and water security, and ecosystems. Mortality rates have been increased due to heatwaves in several regions. Specifically, megacities have high impacts with the increasing temperature and ever-expanding urban areas; it is important to understand extreme temperature changes in terms of duration, magnitude, and frequency for future risk management and disaster mitigation. Here we framed a novel Semi-Parametric quantile mapping method to bias-correct the CMIP6 minimum and maximum temperature projections for 199 megacities worldwide. The changes in maximum and minimum temperature are quantified in terms of climate indices (ETCCDI and HDWI) for the four Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5). Cities in northern Asia and northern North America (Kazan, Samara, Heihe, Montréal, Edmonton, and Moscow) are warming at a higher rate compared to the other regions. There is an increasing and decreasing trend for the warm and cold extremes respectively. Heatwaves increase exponentially in the future with the increase in warming, that is, from SSP1-2.6 to SSP5-8.5. Among the CMIP6 models, a huge variability is observed, and this further increases as the warming increases. All climate indices have steep slopes for the far future (2066–2100) compared to the near future (2031–2065). Yet the variability among CMIP6 models in near future is high compared to the far future for cold indices.

The Köppen-Geiger (KG) climate classification has been widely used to determine the climate at global and regional scales using precipitation and temperature data. KG maps are typically developed using a single product; however, uncertainties in KG climate types resulting from different precipitation and temperature datasets have not been explored in detail. Here, we assess seven global datasets to show uncertainties in KG classification from 1980 to 2017. Using a pairwise comparison at global and zonal scales, we quantify the similarity among the seven KG maps. Gauge- and reanalysis-based KG maps have a notable difference. Spatially, the highest and lowest similarity is observed for the North and South Temperate zones, respectively. Notably, 17% of grids among the seven maps show variations even in the major KG climate types, while 35% of grids are described by more than one KG climate subtype. Strong uncertainty is observed in south Asia, central and south Africa, western America, and northeastern Australia. We created two KG master maps (0.5° resolution) by merging the climate maps directly and by combining the precipitation and temperature data from the seven datasets. These master maps are more robust than the individual ones showing coherent spatial patterns. This study reveals the large uncertainty in climate classification and offers two robust KG maps that may help to better evaluate historical climate and quantify future climate shifts.

Climate models are crucial for assessing climate variability and change. A reliable model for future climate should reasonably simulate the historical climate. Here, we assess the performance of CMIP6 models in reproducing statistical properties of observed annual maxima of daily precipitation. We go beyond the commonly used methods and assess CMIP6 simulations on three scales by performing: (a) univariate comparison based on L-moments and relative difference measures; (b) bivariate comparison using Kernel densities of mean and L-variation, and of L-skewness and L-kurtosis, and (c) comparison of the entire distribution function using the Generalized Extreme Value () distribution coupled with a novel application of the Anderson-Darling Goodness-of-fit test. The results reveal that the statistical shape properties (related to the frequency and magnitude of extremes) of CMIP6 simulations match well with the observational datasets. The simulated mean and variation differ among the models with 70% of simulations having a difference within 10% from the observations. Biases are observed in the bivariate investigation of mean and variation. Several models perform well with the HadGEM3-GC31-MM model performing well in all three scales when compared to the ground-based Global Precipitation Climatology Centre data. Finally, the study highlights biases of CMIP6 models in simulating extreme precipitation in the Arctic, Tropics, arid and semi-arid regions.

Climate models are crucial for assessing climate variability and change. A reliable model for future climate should reasonably simulate the historical climate. Here, we assess the performance of CMIP6 models in reproducing statistical properties of observed annual maxima of daily precipitation. We go beyond the commonly used methods and assess CMIP6 simulations on three scales by performing: (a) univariate comparison based on L-moments and relative difference measures; (b) bivariate comparison using Kernel densities of mean and L-variation, and of L-skewness and L-kurtosis, and (c) comparison of the entire distribution function using the Generalized Extreme Value () distribution coupled with a novel application of the Anderson-Darling Goodness-of-fit test. The results reveal that the statistical shape properties (related to the frequency and magnitude of extremes) of CMIP6 simulations match well with the observational datasets. The simulated mean and variation differ among the models with 70% of simulations having a difference within 10% from the observations. Biases are observed in the bivariate investigation of mean and variation. Several models perform well with the HadGEM3-GC31-MM model performing well in all three scales when compared to the ground-based Global Precipitation Climatology Centre data. Finally, the study highlights biases of CMIP6 models in simulating extreme precipitation in the Arctic, Tropics, arid and semi-arid regions.

As droughts have widespread social and ecological impacts, it is critical to develop long-term adaptation and mitigation strategies to reduce drought vulnerability. Climate models are important in quantifying drought changes. Here, we assess the ability of 285 CMIP6 historical simulations, from 17 models, to reproduce drought duration and severity in three observational data sets using the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI). We used summary statistics beyond the mean and standard deviation, and devised a novel probabilistic framework, based on the Hellinger distance, to quantify the difference between observed and simulated drought characteristics. Results show that many simulations have less than ±10% error in reproducing the observed drought summary statistics. The hypothesis that simulations and observations are described by the same distribution cannot be rejected for more than 80% of the grids based on our H distance framework. No single model stood out as demonstrating consistently better performance over large regions of the globe. The variance in drought statistics among the simulations is higher in the tropics compared to other latitudinal zones. Though the models capture the characteristics of dry spells well, there is considerable bias in low precipitation values. Good model performance in terms of SPI does not imply good performance in simulating low precipitation. Our study emphasizes the need to probabilistically evaluate climate model simulations in order to both pinpoint model weaknesses and identify a subset of best-performing models that are useful for impact assessments.

As droughts have widespread social and ecological impacts, it is critical to develop long-term adaptation and mitigation strategies to reduce drought vulnerability. Climate models are important in quantifying drought changes. Here, we assess the ability of 285 CMIP6 historical simulations, from 17 models, to reproduce drought duration and severity in three observational data sets using the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI). We used summary statistics beyond the mean and standard deviation, and devised a novel probabilistic framework, based on the Hellinger distance, to quantify the difference between observed and simulated drought characteristics. Results show that many simulations have less than ±10% error in reproducing the observed drought summary statistics. The hypothesis that simulations and observations are described by the same distribution cannot be rejected for more than 80% of the grids based on our H distance framework. No single model stood out as demonstrating consistently better performance over large regions of the globe. The variance in drought statistics among the simulations is higher in the tropics compared to other latitudinal zones. Though the models capture the characteristics of dry spells well, there is considerable bias in low precipitation values. Good model performance in terms of SPI does not imply good performance in simulating low precipitation. Our study emphasizes the need to probabilistically evaluate climate model simulations in order to both pinpoint model weaknesses and identify a subset of best-performing models that are useful for impact assessments.

Abstract Gridded precipitation datasets are used in many applications such as the analysis of climate variability/change and hydrological modelling. Regridding precipitation datasets is common for model coupling (e.g., coupling atmospheric and hydrological models) or comparing different models and datasets. However, regridding can considerably alter precipitation statistics. In this global analysis, the effects of regridding a precipitation dataset are emphasized using three regridding methods (first order conservative, bilinear, and distance weighted averaging). The differences between the original and regridded dataset are substantial and greatest at high quantiles. Differences of 46 mm and 0.13 mm are noted in high (0.95) and low (0.05) quantiles respectively. The impacts of regridding vary spatially for land and oceanic regions; there are substantial differences at high quantiles in tropical land regions, and at low quantiles in polar regions. These impacts are approximately the same for different regridding methods. The differences increase with the size of the grid at higher quantiles and vice versa for low quantiles. As the grid resolution increases, the difference between original and regridded data declines, yet the shift size dominates for high quantiles for which the differences are higher. Whilst regridding is often necessary to use gridded precipitation datasets, it should be used with great caution for fine resolutions (e.g., daily and sub-daily), as it can severely alter the statistical properties of precipitation, specifically at high and low quantiles.

Abstract Gridded precipitation datasets are used in many applications such as the analysis of climate variability/change and hydrological modelling. Regridding precipitation datasets is common for model coupling (e.g., coupling atmospheric and hydrological models) or comparing different models and datasets. However, regridding can considerably alter precipitation statistics. In this global analysis, the effects of regridding a precipitation dataset are emphasized using three regridding methods (first order conservative, bilinear, and distance weighted averaging). The differences between the original and regridded dataset are substantial and greatest at high quantiles. Differences of 46 mm and 0.13 mm are noted in high (0.95) and low (0.05) quantiles respectively. The impacts of regridding vary spatially for land and oceanic regions; there are substantial differences at high quantiles in tropical land regions, and at low quantiles in polar regions. These impacts are approximately the same for different regridding methods. The differences increase with the size of the grid at higher quantiles and vice versa for low quantiles. As the grid resolution increases, the difference between original and regridded data declines, yet the shift size dominates for high quantiles for which the differences are higher. Whilst regridding is often necessary to use gridded precipitation datasets, it should be used with great caution for fine resolutions (e.g., daily and sub-daily), as it can severely alter the statistical properties of precipitation, specifically at high and low quantiles.

Multi-model climate experiments carried out as part of different phases of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) are crucial to evaluate past and future climate change. The reliability of models' simulations is often gauged by their ability to reproduce the historical climate across many time scales. This study compares the global mean surface air temperature from 29 CMIP6 models with observations from three datasets. We examine (1) warming and cooling rates in five subperiods from 1880 to 2014, (2) autocorrelation and long-term persistence, (3) models' performance based on probabilistic and entropy metrics, and (4) the distributional shape of temperature. All models simulate the observed long-term warming trend from 1880 to 2014. The late twentieth century warming (1975–2014) and the hiatus (1942–1975) are replicated by most models. The post-1998 warming is overestimated in 90% of the simulations. Only six out of 29 models reproduce the observed long-term persistence. All models show differences in distributional shape when compared with observations. Varying performance across metrics reveals the challenge to determine the "best" model. Thus, we argue that models should be selected, based on case-specific metrics, depending on the intended use. Metrics proposed here facilitate a comprehensive assessment for various applications.

Abstract Global gridded precipitation products have proven essential for many applications ranging from hydrological modeling and climate model validation to natural hazard risk assessment. They provide a global picture of how precipitation varies across time and space, specifically in regions where ground-based observations are scarce. While the application of global precipitation products has become widespread, there is limited knowledge on how well these products represent the magnitude and frequency of extreme precipitation—the key features in triggering flood hazards. Here, five global precipitation datasets (MSWEP, CFSR, CPC, PERSIANN-CDR, and WFDEI) are compared to each other and to surface observations. The spatial variability of relatively high precipitation events (tail heaviness) and the resulting discrepancy among datasets in the predicted precipitation return levels were evaluated for the time period 1979–2017. The analysis shows that 1) these products do not provide a consistent representation of the behavior of extremes as quantified by the tail heaviness, 2) there is strong spatial variability in the tail index, 3) the spatial patterns of the tail heaviness generally match the Köppen–Geiger climate classification, and 4) the predicted return levels for 100 and 1000 years differ significantly among the gridded products. More generally, our findings reveal shortcomings of global precipitation products in representing extremes and highlight that there is no single global product that performs best for all regions and climates.