keith dixon 1, katharine hayhoe 2, john lanzante 1, anne stoner 2, aparna radhakrishnan 3, v. balaji...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Keith Dixon1, Katharine Hayhoe2, John Lanzante1, Anne Stoner2, Aparna Radhakrishnan3, V. Balaji4, Carlos Gaitán5
“Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing Stationarity in Statistical
Downscaling (NCPP Protocol 2)
IS PAST PERFORMANCE AN INDICATION OF FUTURE RESULTS?
1 2 3 DRC Inc. 4 Princeton Univ. 5 Univ. of Oklahoma
2013 Workshop on QuantitativeEvaluation of Downscaled Data
![Page 2: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Goals of this presentation1. Define the ‘stationarity assumption’ inherent to
statistical downscaling of future climate projections.
2. Present our ‘perfect model’ (aka ‘big brother’) approach to quantitatively assess the extent to which the stationarity assumption holds.
3. Illustrate with a few examples the kind of results one can generate using this evaluation framework (Anne Stoner will show more detail next…)
4. Introduce options to extend and supplement the method (setting the hurdle at different heights).
5. Invite statistical downscalers to consider testing their methods within the perfect model framework.
6. Garner feedback from workshop participants.
![Page 3: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
This project does not produce any data files that one would use in real world applications.
DATA INFO KNOW-LEDGE WISDOM
The aim at GFDL is to gain knowledge about aspects of commonly used SD methods (& GCMS), and to communicate that knowledge so that better informed decisions can be made.
![Page 4: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
REAL WORLD APPLICATION:
? ? ?
Start with 3 types of data sets … lacking observations of the futureCompute transform functions in training step (1 example below) Produce downscaled refinements of GCM (historical and/or future)Skill: Compare Obs to SD historical output (e.g., cross validation)Cannot evaluate future skill -- left assuming transform functionsapply equally well to past & future -- “The Stationarity Assumption”
TARGET
PREDICTORS
![Page 5: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
“PERFECT MODEL” EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:Start with 4 types of data sets – Hi-res GCM output as proxy for obs& coarsened version of Hi-res GCM output as proxy for usual GCM
? ? ?
Proxy for observations in real-world applicationProxy for GCM output in real-world application
![Page 6: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Daily time resolution~25km grid spacing
194 x 114 grid22k pts
![Page 7: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
~200km grid spacing64:1
![Page 8: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
~64 of the smaller25km resolution grid cells fit withinthe coarser cell
![Page 9: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Daily time resolution~25km grid spacing
194 x 114 grid
![Page 11: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
![Page 12: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Follow the same interpolation/regriddingsequence to produce coarsened data sets for the future climate projections
![Page 13: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
“PERFECT MODEL” EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:Compute transform functions in training step (1 example below) Produce downscaled output for historical and future time periods Can directly evaluate skill both for the historical period and the future using the Hi Res GCM output as “truth” – Test Stationarity
QuantitativeTests of Stationarity: The extent to which
SKILL computed for the FUTURE CLIMATE PROJECTIONS is diminished relative to the
SKILL computed for the HISTORICAL PERIOD
![Page 14: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
GFDL-HiRAM-C360 experimentsAll data used in the perfect model testswere derived from GFDL-HiRAM-C360 (C360) model simulations conducted following CMIP5 high resolution time slice experiment protocols.
We consider a pair of 30-year long “historical”experiments (1979-2008), labeled H2 and H2here…
For the period 2086-2095, we make useof a pair of 3 member ensembles -- a total of six 10-year long experiments, identified as the “C” and “E” ensemblesto the right (C warms more than E)...
![Page 15: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Same GCM used to generate 2 sets of future projections (3 members each)1979-2008 model climatology
2086-2095 projection “C” (3x10yr)
2086-2095 projection “E” (3x10yr)
"E" Regional Warming [K]
"C" Regional Warming [K]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
4.1
6.2
5.0
7.2
Land All pts
![Page 16: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Q: How High a Hurdle does this Perfect Model approach present?
A: Varies geographically,by variable of interest,time period of interest, etc.
![Page 17: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Coarsened data isslightly cooler withSlightly smaller std dev.… not too challenging
August Daily Max Temperaturesfor a point in Oklahoma
(2.5C histogram bins)
![Page 18: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
approx. +7Cmean warming
August Daily Max Temperaturesfor a point in Oklahoma
(2.5C histogram bins)
![Page 19: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
August Daily Max Temperaturesfor a point just NE of San Fancisco
Coarsened data ismore ‘maritime’ &HiRes target is more ‘continental’.
Presents more of achallenge during thehistorical period than the Oklahoma example.
(2.5C histogram bins)
![Page 20: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
August Daily Max Temperaturesfor a point just NE of San Fancisco
(2.5C histogram bins)
![Page 21: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Note that in several locations there is a tendency for ARRM cross-validated downscaled output to have too low standard deviations just offshore and too high std. dev. over coastal land
Map produced by NCPP Evaluation Environment ‘Machinery’
![Page 22: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
NEXT: A sampling of results…
Intended to be illustrative…not exhaustive, nor systematic.
Anne Stoner (TTU) will show more.
![Page 23: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Area Mean Time Mean Absolute Downscaling ErrorsΣ | (Downscaled Estimate – HiRes GCM) |
(NumDays)
1979-2008 "C" 2086-2095 "E" 2086-20950.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0.63
0.90
0.760.82
1.14
0.98
All Pts Land
+40% +20%
Start with a summary: ARRM downscaling errors are larger for daily max temp at end of 21stC than for 1979-2008
![Page 24: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Mean Absolute downscaling Error (MAE) during 1979-2008Σ | (Downscaled Estimate – HiRes GCM) |
(60 * 365)
1979-2008
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6All PtsLand
Geographic Variations: Downscaling MAE for 1979-2008
![Page 25: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Mean absolute downscaling error during 2086-2095“E” Projections (3 member ensemble)
"E" 2086-2095
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6All PtsLand
Geographic Variations: MAE pattern for “E” projections (+5,4C)
![Page 26: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Mean absolute downscaling error during 2086-2095“C” Projections (3 member ensemble)
"C" 2086-2095
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6All PtsLand
Geographic Variations: MAE pattern for “C” projections (+7,6C)
![Page 27: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Mean Climate Change Signal Difference (ARRM minus Target) “C” Projection
Geographic Variations: Bias pattern for “C” projections (+7,6C)
![Page 28: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Red = “C” Blue=“E”
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Entire US48 Domain
Looking at how well the stationarity assumption holds in different seasons
Where and when ratio=1.0, the stationarity assumption fully holds (i.e., no degradation in mean absolute downscaling error during 2085-2095 vs. the 1979-2008 period using in training.)
4
3
2
1
tasmax
![Page 29: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
…comparing near-coastal land vs. interior
Looking at how well the stationarity assumption holds in different seasons
![Page 30: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Blue= coastal SC-CSCBlack = full US48+ domainGreen = interior SC-CSC
Looking at how well the stationarity assumption holds in different seasons
“C” ensemble
4
3
2
1
![Page 31: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
“C” ensembletasmax
A clear intra-month MAE trend in some but not all months
Looking at how well the stationarity assumption holds in different seasons
![Page 32: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
“sawtooth” has lower values in cooler part of month, higher in warmer part of month
“C” ensembletasmax
![Page 33: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Options for extending this ‘perfect model-based’ exploration of statistical downscaling stationarity
More SDMethods
More ClimateVariables & Indices
Different HiResClimate Models
Different Emissions Scenarios & Times
Use of SyntheticTime Series
Alter GCM-baseddata in known waysto ‘Raise the Bar’
Mix & Match GCMs’Target & Predictors
?? MoreIdeas ??
![Page 34: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
GFDL-HiRAM-C360 experimentsData sets used in the perfect model tests are beingmade available to the community. This enables others to use our exp design to test the stationarity assumption for their own SD method.Also, we invite SD developers to consider collaborating with us, so that their techniques &perspectives may be more fully incorporated into this evolving perfect model-based research & assessment system.For more info, visit www.gfdl.noaa.gov/esd_eval &www.earthsystemcog.org/projects/gfdl-perfectmodel
![Page 35: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
In other words, by accessing these types of files, folks can generate their own SD results and test how well the stationarity assumption holds for their favorite SD method.
from us
from us
![Page 36: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
In other words, by accessing these types of files, folks can generate their own SD results and test how well the stationarity assumption holds for their favorite SD method.
from us
SD method
of choice
from us
![Page 37: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Obviously, one does not need to perform tests using all 22,000+ grid points. Below we indicate the locations of
a set of 16 points we’ve used for some development work.(color areas are 3x3 with grid point of interest in the center)
![Page 38: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Anne Stoner and Katharine Hayhoe with more ‘perfect model’ analyses…
![Page 39: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Keith Dixon1, Katharine Hayhoe2, John Lanzante1, Anne Stoner2, Aparna Radhakrishnan3, V. Balaji4, Carlos Gaitán5
“Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing Stationarity in Statistical
Downscaling (NCPP Protocol 2)
IS PAST PERFORMANCE AN INDICATION OF FUTURE RESULTS?
1 2 3 DRC Inc. 4 Princeton Univ. 5 Univ. of Oklahoma
2013 Workshop on QuantitativeEvaluation of Downscaled Data
![Page 40: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
“PERFECT MODEL” EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:Compute transform functions in training step (1 example below) Produce downscaled output for historical and future time periods Can directly evaluate skill both for the historical period and the future using the Hi Res GCM output as “truth” – Test Stationarity
![Page 41: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Options for extending this ‘perfect model-based’ exploration of statistical downscaling stationarity
More SDMethods
More ClimateVariables & Indices
Different HiResClimate Models
Different Emissions Scenarios & Times
Use of SyntheticTime Series
Alter GCM-baseddata in known waysto ‘Raise the Bar’
Mix & Match GCMs’Target & Predictors
?? MoreIdeas ??
![Page 42: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
This project does not produce any data files that one would use in real world applications.
DATA INFO KNOW-LEDGE WISDOM
The aim at GFDL is to gain knowledge about aspects of commonly used SD methods (& GCMS), and to communicate that knowledge so that better informed decisions can be made.
Odds-n-ends from day 1* Not all SD codes run on a cell phone* Not All GCMs have 200km atmos grid (50km)* GCMs are developed primarily as research tools – not prediction tools
![Page 43: Keith Dixon 1, Katharine Hayhoe 2, John Lanzante 1, Anne Stoner 2, Aparna Radhakrishnan 3, V. Balaji 4, Carlos Gaitán 5 “Perfect Model” Experiments: Testing](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649e045503460f94af00c2/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Goals of this presentation1. Define the ‘stationarity assumption’ inherent to
statistical downscaling of future climate projections.
2. Present our ‘perfect model’ (aka ‘big brother’) approach to quantitatively assess the extent to which the stationarity assumption holds.
3. Illustrate with a few examples the kind of results one can generate using this evaluation framework (Anne Stoner will show more detail next…)
4. Introduce options to extend and supplement the method (setting the hurdle at different heights).
5. Invite statistical downscalers to consider testing their methods within the perfect model framework.
6. Garner feedback from workshop participants.