Performance of the general circulation models in simulating temperature and precipitation over Iran
- 155 Downloads
General Circulation Models (GCMs) are advanced tools for impact assessment and climate change studies. Previous studies show that the performance of the GCMs in simulating climate variables varies significantly over different regions. This study intends to evaluate the performance of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) GCMs in simulating temperature and precipitation over Iran. Simulations from 37 GCMs and observations from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were obtained for the period of 1901–2005. Six measures of performance including mean bias, root mean square error (RMSE), Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), linear correlation coefficient (r), Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic (KS), Sen’s slope estimator, and the Taylor diagram are used for the evaluation. GCMs are ranked based on each statistic at seasonal and annual time scales. Results show that most GCMs perform reasonably well in simulating the annual and seasonal temperature over Iran. The majority of the GCMs have a poor skill to simulate precipitation, particularly at seasonal scale. Based on the results, the best GCMs to represent temperature and precipitation simulations over Iran are the CMCC-CMS (Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change) and the MRI-CGCM3 (Meteorological Research Institute), respectively. The results are valuable for climate and hydrometeorological studies and can help water resources planners and managers to choose the proper GCM based on their criteria.
The authors would like to thank the CMIP5 climate modeling groups (Table 1) and the Climatic Research (CRU) from the University of East Anglia for making their products publicly available. We recognize the UNESCO Chair in Water and Environment Management for Sustainable Cities, Sharif University of Technology for the help in this work. We are thankful to the reviewer whose comments and suggestions improved the paper.
- Hannah L (2015) Climate change biology. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- IPCC (1996) Climate Change 1995: Impacts, adaptations, and mitigation of climate change: scientific-technical analyses. Contribution of Working Group II to the second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Watson RT, Zinyowera MC, Moss RH (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
- IPCC (2007) Climate models and their evaluation. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
- IPCC (2013) Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Sciences Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker TF, Qin, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley BM (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
- Kolmogorov AN (1933) Sulla determinazione empirica di una legge di distribuzione. Giornale dell'Istituto Italiano degli Attuari 4:83–91Google Scholar
- Smirnov NV (1933) Estimate of deviation between empirical distribution functions in two independent sample (in Russian). Bull Moscow Univ 2:3–16Google Scholar
- Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2009) A summary of the CMIP5 experiment design. PCDMI Rep., 33 pp. [Available online at http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/Taylor_CMIP5_design.pdf]