بررسی عملکرد چهار روش کوچک‌مقیاس سازی بارش و دما تحت سناریوهای RCP مطالعه موردی: ایستگاه کرج

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری گروه مهندسی آب

2 دانشگاه بیرجند، دانشکده کشاورزی، گروه مهندسی علوم آب، دانشیار

3 گروه مهندسی آب،دانشکده آب وخاک ، دانشگاه زابل، زابل

4 استادیار گروه عمران و هیدرولیک، دانشگاه کِی یو. لُووِن، بلژیک

چکیده

در این مطالعه ضمن بررسی عدم قطعیت ناشی از 20 مدل AOGCM تحت تأثیر دو سناریوی انتشار RCP2.6 و RCP8.6 در دو دوره آماری (2006-1961) و (2018-2006) تغییرات پارامترهای حداقل دما، حداکثر دما و بارندگی ماهانه در بازه زمانی(2040-2020) در حوضه آبریز کرج مورد مطالعه قرار گرفت. از مدل­های LARS-WG، SDSM،ANN و Change Factor به‌منظور ریزمقیاس نمایی استفاده گردید. ارزیابی عملکرد مدل­ها با روش فاصله اطمینان بوت استرپ، معیارهای آماری R2،NS،PBIAS،PRS و روش وزن دهیMOTP  صورت گرفت. در بازه زمانی (2006-1961)، از بین 20 مدل اقلیمی AOGCM گزارش پنجم، 9 مدل به‌عنوان مدل بهینه انتخاب گردید. نتایج بررسی‌ها روی این مدل­ها در بازه زمانی (2018-2006) تحت سناریوهای انتشار RCP2.6 و RCP8.5 نشان داد که مدل‌ اقلیمی MPI-ESM-LR پارامتر حداکثر دما را در هر دو سناریو و بارندگی را در سناریوی RCP8.5، مدل GISS-E2-R2پارامتر حداقل دما را در RC8.5 و مدل EC-ERTH بارندگی را در RCP2.6 با کمترین میزان عدم قطعیت شبیه­سازی می­کند. همچنین نتایج نشان داد LARS-WG نسبت به سایر مدل‌های ریزمقیاس­ سازی دارای عملکرد بهتری است. جهت انتخاب مدل برتر، سه مدل انتخابی با استفاده از رویکرد MOTP، وزن دهی شدند. نتایج این بخش عملکرد مطلوب MPI-ESM-LR را به اثبات رساند.درنهایت جهت اطمینان از کارایی مدل انتخابی، باند عدم قطعیت بوت استرپ محاسبه شد. نتایج این بخش نشان داد که در اکثر ماه‌ها و ایستگاه­ها داده­ها، در محدوده اطمینان قرار می­گیرند. نهایتا با کمک مدل نهایی انتخابیً پارامترها در بازه زمانی (2040-2020) شبیه­سازی شدند. نتایج نشان داد، تغییرات میانگین کلی سالانه بارش فاقد روند افزایشی و کاهشی بوده و میانگین حداکثر و حداقل دما نیز به ترتیب دارای روند کاهشی و افزایشی خواهد بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluating Performance of Four Statistical Downscaling Models (SDSM) of Precipitation and Temperature Data under the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Scenarios

نویسندگان [English]

  • icen yoosefdoost 1
  • Abbas kHASHEI Siuki 2
  • Omolbbani mohammadrezapour 3
  • Hossein Tabari 4
1 phd student of Water Engineering University of Birjand
2 Department of Science and Water Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Ph.D. Associate professor, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran,
3 Associate professor, Department of Sciences and Water Engineering, Faculty of soil and water, University of Zabol
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Hydraulics Section, University of Leuven, Belgium
چکیده [English]

Introduction
The investigations show that the increase in greenhouse gasses has led to an increase in the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and, consequently the global warming in recent years. Moreover, the rise of greenhouse gasses has also caused changes in other climatic variables such as precipitation. Given the fact that climate change will bring about considerable effects on the water resources, the prediction of the climatic condition and water resources of a region is one of the planning prerequisites for the economic and social development of every country. Therefore, considering the climatic condition and volume of water resources in a country in the future is inevitable. Since the initial effects of climate change are exerted on the meteorological variables of precipitation and temperature, and any change in these variables results in disorder in many hydrological phenomena, it is essential to precisely examine the future changes of these parameters and their simulation methods. Hence, this study was conducted to evaluate the uncertainty of 20 AOGCM models under two emission scenarios of RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 in the two statistical periods (1961-2006) and (2006-2018) in the drainage basin of Karaj River. The changes in the parameters of minimum temperature, maximum temperature, and precipitation in the period of (2020-2040) compared to the baseline period were also investigated.
Materials and methods
At first, the downscaling of the parameters of minimum temperature, maximum temperature, and precipitation was carried out using the two statistical periods of (1961-2006) and (2006-2018) and the large-scale NCEP variables as the inputs for the models of Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), LARS-WG, SDSM, and Change Factor method to determine the model’s error and evaluate its performance. For this purpose, the features and functions available in the programming environments of MATLAB, LARS-WG, and SDSM5.5.2 were employed after data normalization. The bootstrap confidence interval method and statistical criteria such as coefficient of determination (R2), Nash–Sutcliffe coefficient (NS), percent bias (PBIAS), and PRS were used to evaluate the performance of the models. Due to the suitable range of each one of statistical evaluation coefficients being within the confidence interval defined by the bootstrap method in the period of (1961-2006), the most appropriate climatic models were chosen for this from the selected AOGCM climatic model of the fifth report. In order to improve the accuracy of the chosen models in the period of (2006-2018) under the scenarios of RCP2.6 and RCP8.5, the most appropriate model for each AOGCM scenario was selected using the statistical indexes and bootstrap confidence interval method. In the next step, the chosen models of each climatic scenario were weighted using the MOTP approach for the final evaluation and selection of the model with the lowest uncertainty. Each one of these weights indicates the capability of each model in simulating the variables of minimum temperature, maximum temperature, and precipitation of the intended month, which was conducted in both scenarios of RCP2.6 and RCP8.5. The weights are presented as percentages, and the highest weight is 100, which is also considered the highest score for each model. The model chosen in this step conducts the downscaling and simulation of statistical parameters with lower uncertainty compared to the other AOGCM models and the downscaling models investigated in this study. In this stage, the confidence interval of the model (MPI-ESM-LR downscaled by the LARS-WG model) was calculated by the bootstrap method to ensure the efficiency of the chosen model. In order to analyze the accuracy of the model in downscaling the climatic elements, the number of station-months within the confidence interval was taken into account. In the last step, the climatic parameters predicted by the chosen optimum model (the model with the lowest uncertainty) in the future period (2020-2040) were compared with those in the baseline period (1999-2018). The changes in the precipitation, minimum temperature, and maximum temperature in the region were also investigated.
 
Conclusion
In the period of (1961-2006), among 20 AOGCM climatic models of the fifth report, the nine models of MIROC-ESM, CESM1-WACCM, CSIROC-MK3-6-0, EC-EARTH, GISS-E2-H, GISS-E2-R, MIROC-ESM-CHEM, MPI-ESM-LR, and MPI-ESM-MR were selected as the optimum climatic models in the drainage basin of Karaj according to the suitable range of each one of statistical evaluation coefficients for the models being within the confidence interval defined by the bootstrap method. More detailed investigations on the nine selected models in the (2006-2018) period under the RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 emission scenarios showed that the MPI-ESM-LR climatic model simulates and downscales the maximum temperature parameter in the two scenarios of RCP8.5 and RCP2.6 and the precipitation in the RCP8.5 scenario with the lowest uncertainty using the LARS-WG model. The GISS-E2-R2 model has similar performances on the minimum temperature in the RC8.5 scenario. Moreover, the EC-ERTH model simulates and downscales the precipitation with the lowest uncertainty. The three chosen models were weighted using the MOTP approach for the final evaluation and selection of the best model. The results showed that in most of the months, the highest weight percent in the simulation of climatic variables belongs to the MPI-ESM-LR model. This model is more capable of simulating the precipitation, minimum, and maximum temperatures in both scenarios of RCP8.5 and RCP2.6. Eventually, the confidence interval of the MPI-ESM-LR model (downscaled by the LARS-WG model) was calculated by the bootstrap model to ensure the efficiency of the chosen model. According to the results, it was found that among the 72 station-months, the average maximum temperatures in 62 cases were within the confidence interval.
Furthermore, the monthly analysis of average and variance of the minimum temperature, maximum temperature, and precipitation showed that in most of the months, these parameters are within the confidence interval. This shows the high accuracy and low uncertainty of the selected model. In the next step, the parameters of minimum temperature, maximum temperature, and precipitation in the period of (2020-2040) were simulated and downscaled by the chosen model. The evaluation of results in this section showed that the minimum temperature would have a growing trend until 2040. The slope of the average minimum temperature curve in the studied statistical period under the RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 scenarios will increase by 0.02% and 0.08%, respectively. The most significant growth of this parameter was estimated to be +0.8ºC and +0.16ºC under the RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 scenarios in September and March, respectively. The precipitation in the RCP2.6 scenario has nor decreasing neither increasing trend. The statistics of Sen Test in the evaluated confidence intervals indicated that the average precipitation had decreased by almost 0.38 mm every year. The annual average in the RCP8.5 scenario has a significant decreasing trend with a slope of -1.31 mm in the low confidence interval (α = 0.1). The most considerable growth and reduction with the values of +0.45 and +0.63 in the slope of precipitation curve in this scenario are seen in July and October, respectively. This parameter has also a decreasing trend in the very high level of (α = 0.001) for the average maximum temperature in both scenarios. Based on the obtained results, this climatic parameter has a significant decreasing trend in the studied confidence intervals in most of the months. The largest reduction of this parameter under the RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 scenarios will happen in March and June by 0.20ºC and 0.14ºC.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • climate change
  • Uncertainty
  • Down Scaling
  • Minimum
  • and Maximum Temperature
  • Precipitation
  1.  

    1. Ahmadzadeh Araji, Hamidreza et al. 2018. “Impacts of Climate Change on Soybean Production under Different Treatments of Field Experiments Considering the Uncertainty of General Circulation Models.” Agricultural Water Management 205(May): 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.04.02.
    2. Ahmed, Kazi Farzan et al. 2013. “Statistical Downscaling and Bias Correction of Climate Model Outputs for Climate Change Impact Assessment in the U.S. Northeast.” Global and Planetary Change 100: 320–32.
    3. Aksoy, Hafzullah, and Ahmad Dahamsheh. 2009. “Artificial Neural Network Models for Forecasting Monthly Precipitation in Jordan.” Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 23(7): 917–31.
    4. Anandhi, Aavudai et al. 2011. “Examination of Change Factor Methodologies for Climate Change Impact Assessment.” Water Resources Research 47(3). http://doi.wiley.com/10.1029/2010WR009104 (February 1, 2020).
    5. Ashofteh, Parisa-Sadat, Omid Bozorg Haddad, and Miguel A. Mariño. 2015. “Risk Analysis of Water Demand for Agricultural Crops under Climate Change.” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 20(4): 04014060. http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29HE.1943-5584.0001053.
    6. Ashofteh, Parisa Sadat, Omid Bozorg Haddad, and Miguel A. Mariño. 2013. “Scenario Assessment of Streamflow Simulation and Its Transition Probability in Future Periods Under Climate Change.” Water Resources Management 27(1): 255–74.
    7. Ashofteh, Parisa Sadat, Omid Bozorg Haddad, and Miguel A. Mariño. 2015. “Risk Analysis of Water Demand for Agricultural Crops under Climate Change.” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 20(4).
    8. Baghanam, Aida Hosseini, Vahid Nourani, Ali Sheikhbabaei, and Arshia Jedary Seifi. 2019. Statistical Downscaling and Projection of Future Temperature Change for Tabriz City, Iran.
    9. Chen, Jie, François P. Brissette, Diane Chaumont, and Marco Braun. 2013. “Performance and Uncertainty Evaluation of Empirical Downscaling Methods in Quantifying the Climate Change Impacts on Hydrology over Two North American River Basins.” Journal of Hydrology 479: 200–214.
    10. Coulibaly, Paulin et al. 2005. “Downscaling Precipitation and Temperature with Temporal Neural Networks.” Journal of Hydrometeorology 6(4): 483–96. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JHM409.1 (September 12, 2019).
    11. D. N. Moriasi et al. 2007. “Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations.” Transactions of the ASABE 50(3): 885–900. http://elibrary.asabe.org/abstract.asp??JID=3&AID=23153&CID=t2007&v=50&i=3&T=1 (January 26, 2020).
    12. Dehghani, Majid et al. 2014. “Uncertainty Analysis of Streamflow Drought Forecast Using Artificial Neural Networks and Monte-Carlo Simulation.” International Journal of Climatology 34(4): 1169–80.
    13. Diaz-Nieto, Jacqueline, and Robert L. Wilby. 2005. “A Comparison of Statistical Downscaling and Climate Change Factor Methods: Impacts on Low Flows in the River Thames, United Kingdom.” Climatic Change 69(2–3): 245–68.
    14. Dibike, Yonas B., and Paulin Coulibaly. 2005. “Hydrologic Impact of Climate Change in the Saguenay Watershed: Comparison of Downscaling Methods and Hydrologic Models.” Journal of Hydrology 307(1–4): 145–63.
    15. Ebrahim, Girma Yimer, Andreja Jonoski, Ann Van Griensven, and Giuliano Di Baldassarre. 2013. “Downscaling Technique Uncertainty in Assessing Hydrological Impact of Climate Change in the Upper Beles River Basin, Ethiopia.” Hydrology Research 44(2): 377–98.
    16. Effron, B, and RJ Tibshirani. 1994. “An Introduction to the Bootstrap (Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability).”
    17. Fakhri, Masoomeh, Mohammad Reza Farzaneh, Saeid Eslamian, and Mohammad Javad Khordadi. 2013. “Confidence Interval Assessment to Estimate Dry and Wet Spells under Climate Change in Shahrekord Station, Iran.” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 18(7): 911–18.
    18. Harpham, Colin, and Robert L. Wilby. 2005. “Multi-Site Downscaling of Heavy Daily Precipitation Occurrence and Amounts.” Journal of Hydrology 312(1–4): 235–55.
    19. Hashmi MZU, Rahman, Shamseldin AY, and Melville BW. 2018. “Comparison of MLP-ANN Scheme and SDSM as Tools for Providing Downscaled Precipitation for Impact Studies at Daily Time Scale.” Journal of Earth Science & Climatic Change 09(06).
    20. Hesari, Azade Ghazanfari. 2016. “Introduction Package CircOutlier For Detection of Outliers in Circular-Circular Regression.” Andishe-ye Amari 20(2): 11–16.
    21. Do Hoai, Nam, Keiko Udo, and Akira Mano. 2011. “Downscaling Global Weather Forecast Outputs Using ANN for Flood Prediction.” Journal of Applied Mathematics 2011.
    22. IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). 2013. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ (June 17, 2015).
    23. Keteklahijani, Vahid Kimiagar, Saeed Alimohammadi, and Ebrahim Fattahi. 2019. “Predicting Changes in Monthly Streamflow to Karaj Dam Reservoir, Iran, in Climate Change Condition and Assessing Its Uncertainty.” Ain Shams Engineering Journal 10(4): 669–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2018.11.004.
    24. Khan, Mohammad Sajjad, Paulin Coulibaly, and Yonas Dibike. 2006. “Uncertainty Analysis of Statistical Downscaling Methods Using Canadian Global Climate Model Predictors.” Hydrological Processes 20(14): 3085–3104.
    25. Massahbavani, AR, and S Morid. 2005. “Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources and Food Production: A Case Study of Zayandeh-Rud Basin, Esfahan, Iran.” https://www.sid.ir/en/Journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=49692 (February 1, 2020).
    26. Minville, Marie, François Brissette, and Robert Leconte. 2008. “Uncertainty of the Impact of Climate Change on the Hydrology of a Nordic Watershed.” Journal of Hydrology 358(1–2): 70–83.
    27. Salmi, T., Maatta, A., Anttila, P., Ruoho-Airola, T., Amnell, T. 2002. “Detecting Trends of Annual Values of Atmospheric Pollutants by the Mann–Kendall Test and Sen’s Slope Estimates.” Publications on Air Quality 31: 1–35.
    28. Salmi, T. et al. 2002. “Detecting Trends of Annual Values of Atmospheric Pollutants by the Mann-Kendall Test and Sen’s Slope Estimates: The Excel Template Application MAKESENS.”
    29. Samadi, S., Catherine A.M.E. Wilson, and Hamid Moradkhani. 2013. “Uncertainty Analysis of Statistical Downscaling Models Using Hadley Centre Coupled Model.” Theoretical and Applied Climatology 114(3–4): 673–90.
    30. Semenov, Mikhail A., and Elaine M. Barrow. 1997. “Use of a Stochastic Weather Generator in the Development of Climate Change Scenarios.” Climatic Change 35(4): 397–414.
    31. Semenov, Mikhail A, and Elaine M Barrow. 2002. LARS-WG A Stochastic Weather Generator for Use in Climate Impact Studies Developed by Mikhail A. Semenov Version 3.0 User Manual. http://www.iacr.bbsrc.ac.uk/mas-models/larswg.html. (February 1, 2020).
    32. Solgi, Abazar, Heidar Zarei, Vahid Nourani, and Ramin Bahmani. 2017. “A New Approach to Flow Simulation Using Hybrid Models.” Applied Water Science 7(7): 3691–3706.
    33. Tibshirani, RJ, B Efron - Monographs on statistics, and undefined 1993. “An Introduction to the Bootstrap.” cindy.informatik.uni-bremen.de. http://cindy.informatik.uni-bremen.de/cosy/teaching/CM_2011/Eval3/pe_efron_93.pdf (January 25, 2020).
    34. Valverde Ramírez, Maria Cleofé, Haroldo Fraga De Campos Velho, and Nelson Jesus Ferreira. 2005. “Artificial Neural Network Technique for Rainfall Forecasting Applied to the São Paulo Region.” Journal of Hydrology 301(1–4): 146–62.
    35. Wilby, R. L., C. W. Dawson, and E. M. Barrow. 2002. “SDSM - A Decision Support Tool for the Assessment of Regional Climate Change Impacts.” Environmental Modelling and Software 17(2): 145–57.
    36. Wilby, Robert L., and Michael D. Dettinger. 2000. “Streamflow Changes in the Sierra Nevada, California, Simulated Using a Statistically Downscaled General Circulation Model Scenario of Climate Change.” In, 99–121. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/0-306-48086-7_6 (April 19, 2018).
    37. Yousefi Malekshah, M, R Ghazavi, and S.J Sadatinejad. 2019. “Evaluating the Effect of Climate Changes on Runoff and Maximum Flood Discharge in the Dry Area (Case Study : Tehran-Karaj Basin).” ECOPERSIA 7(4): 211–21.
    38. Zhou, Yanlai, and Shenglian Guo. 2013. “Incorporating Ecological Requirement into Multipurpose Reservoir Operating Rule Curves for Adaptation to Climate Change.” Journal of Hydrology 498: 153–64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002216941300471X (September 12, 2019).