CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 200

Review of approaches for selection and ensembling of GCMs

Raju, Komaragiri Srinivasa, Kumar, Dasika Nagesh·2020·Journal of Water and Climate Change
DOI 10.2166/wcc.2020.128
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Global climate models (GCMs) are developed to simulate past climate and produce projections of climate in future. Their roles in ascertaining regional issues and possible solutions in water resources planning/management are appreciated across the world. However, there is substantial uncertainty in the future projections of GCM(s) for practical and regional implementation which has attracted criticism by the water resources planners. The present paper aims at reviewing the selection of GCMs and focusing on performance indicators, ranking of GCMs and ensembling of GCMs and covering different geographical regions. In addition, this paper also proposes future research directions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2166/wcc.2020.128

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The 50% top-performing GCMs are optimum for climate change impact studies to reduce uncertainty in model projections.

    “It is suggested that the 50% top-performing GCMs are optimum for the climate change impact studies to reduce the uncertainty in the model projections (Ahmed et al. 2020;Raju & Nagesh Kumar 2020).”

    From Catchment response to climate change under CMIP6 scenarios: a case study of the Krishna River Basin (2024) · cites this paper as Raju & Nagesh Kumar 2020

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 178

  1. Abbasian, M., Moghim, S. & Abrishamchi, A.  Performance of the general circulation models in simulating temperature and precipitation over Iran. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 135, 1465-1483. · DOI
  2. Abeysingha, N. S., Islam, A. & Singh, M.  Assessment of climate change impact on flow regimes over the Gomti river basin under IPCC AR5 climate change scenarios. J. Water Clim. Chan. 11, 303-426. · DOI
  3. Acharya, A.  Quantification of modeled streamflows under climate change over the Flint River watershed in Northern Alabama. J. Hydrol. Eng. 22, 04017032. · DOI
  4. Acharya, A., Piechota, T. C. & Tootle, G.  Quantitative assessment of climate change impacts on the hydrology of the North Platte river watershed, Wyoming. J. Hydrol. Eng. 17, 1071-1083. · DOI
  5. Adhikari, U. & Nejadhashemi, A. P.  Impacts of climate change on water resources in Malawi. J. Hydrol. Eng. 21, 05016026. · DOI
  6. Afshar, A. A., Hasanzadeh, Y., Besalatpour, A. A. & Pourreza- Bilondi, M.  Climate change forecasting in a mountainous data scarce watershed using CMIP5 models under representative concentration pathways. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 129, 683-699. · DOI
  7. Agyekum, J., Annor, T., Lamptey, B., Quansah, E. & Agyeman, R. Y. K.  Evaluation of CMIP5 global climate models over the Volta Basin: precipitation. Adv. Meteorol. 2018, 1-24. · DOI
  8. Ahmadalipour, A., Rana, A., Moradkhani, H. & Sharma, A.  Multi-criteria evaluation of CMIP5 GCMs for climate change impact analysis. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 128, 71-87. · DOI
  9. Ahmed, K., Sachindra, D. A., Shahid, S., Demirel, M. C. & Chung, E. S.  Selection of multi-model ensemble of GCMs for the simulation of precipitation based on spatial assessment metrics. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 23, 4803-4824. · DOI
  10. Ahmed, K., Shahid, S., Sachindra, D. A., Nawaz, N. & Chung, E. S.  Fidelity assessment of general circulation model simulated precipitation and temperature over Pakistan using a feature selection method. J. Hydrol. 573, 281-298. · DOI
  11. Ahmed, K., Sachindra, D. A., Shahid, S., Iqbal, Z., Nawaz, N. & Khan, N.  Multi-model ensemble predictions of precipitation and temperature using machine learning algorithms. Atmos. Res. 236, 1-20. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Akinsanola, A. A. & Zhou, W.  Ensemble-based CMIP5 simulations of West African summer monsoon rainfall: current climate and future changes. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 136, 1021-1031. · DOI
  13. Aloysius, N. R., Sheffield, J., Saiers, J. E., Li, H. & Wood, E. F.  Evaluation of historical and future simulations of precipitation and temperature in Central Africa from CMIP5 climate models. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 121, 130-152. · DOI
  14. Al-Safi, H. I. J. & Sarukkalige, P. R.  Evaluation of the impacts of future hydrological changes on the sustainable water resources management of the Richmond river catchment. J. Water Clim. Chan. 9, 137-155. · DOI
  15. Al-Safi, H. I. J. & Sarukkalige, P. R.  The application of conceptual modelling approach to evaluate the impacts of climate change on the future streamflow in three unregulated catchments of the Australian hydrologic reference stations. Int. J. Hydrol. Sci. Tech. 9 (5), 494-525. · DOI
  16. Amraoui, N., Sbai, M. A. & Stollsteiner, P.  Assessment of climate change impacts on water resources in the Somme River basin (France). Water Resour. Manage. 33, 2073-2092. · DOI
  17. Anandhi, A. & Nanjundiah, R. S.  Performance evaluation of AR4 climate models in simulating daily precipitation over the Indian region using skill scores. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 119, 551-566. · DOI
  18. Anandhi, A., Frei, A., Pradhanang, S. M., Zion, M. S., Pierson, D. C. & Schneiderman, E. M.  AR4 climate model performance in simulating snow water equivalent over Catskill Mountain watersheds, New York, USA. Hydrol. Process. 25, 3302-3311. · DOI
  19. Anandhi, A., Pierson, D. C. & Frei, A.  Evaluation of climate model performance for water supply studies: case study for New York city. J. Water Res. Plan. Manage. 145. https://doi. org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001054. · DOI
  20. Ashofteh, P., Bozorg-Haddad, O. & Mariño, M. A.  Performance evaluation of a developed hybrid AOGCM model under climate change. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 142. https:// doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001107. · DOI
  21. Bae, D. H., Koike, T., Awan, J. A., Lee, M. H. & Sohn, K. H.  Climate change impact assessment on water resources and susceptible zones identification in the Asian monsoon region. Water Resour. Manage. 29, 5377-5393. · DOI
  22. Baker, N. C. & Taylor, P. C.  A framework for evaluating climate model performance metrics. J. Climate 29, 1773-1782. · DOI
  23. Bannister, D., Herzog, M., Graf, H. F., Hosking, J. S. & Short, C. A.  An assessment of recent and future temperature change over the Sichuan Basin, China, using CMIP5 climate models. J. Climate 30, 6701-6722. · DOI
  24. Bao, J. & Feng, J.  Intercomparison of CMIP5 simulations of summer precipitation, evaporation, and water vapor transport over Yellow and Yangtze River basins. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 123, 437-452. · DOI
  25. Barfus, K. & Bernhofer, C.  Assessment of GCM capabilities to simulate tropospheric stability on the Arabian Peninsula. Int. J. Climatol. 35, 1682-1696. · DOI
  26. Basharin, D., Polonsky, A. & Stankunavicǐus, G.  Projected precipitation and air temperature over Europe using a performance-based selection method of CMIP5 GCMs. J. Water Clim. Change. 7, 103-113. · DOI
  27. Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S. K., Yazdani, M. & Ignatius, J.  A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Exp. Sys. Appl. 39, 13051-13069. · DOI
  28. Benedict, I., van Heerwaarden, C. C., Weerts, A. H. & Hazeleger, W.  The benefits of spatial resolution increase in global simulations of the hydrological cycle evaluated for the Rhine and Mississippi basins. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 23, 1779-1800. · DOI
  29. Bhattacharjee, P. S. & Zaitchik, B. F.  Perspectives on CMIP5 model performance in the Nile River headwaters regions. Int. J. Climatol. 35, 4262-4275. · DOI
  30. Bhowmik, R. D., Sharma, A. & Sankarasubramanian, A.  Reducing model structural uncertainty in climate model projections -a rank-based model combination approach. J. Climate 30, 10139-10154. · DOI
  31. Bisht, D. S., Sridhar, V., Mishra, A., Chatterjee, C. & Raghuwanshi, N. S.  Drought characterization over India under projected climate scenario. Int. J. Climatol. 39, 1889-1911. · DOI
  32. Bosshard, T., Carambia, M., Goergen, K., Kotlarski, S., Krahe, P., Zappa, M. & Schär, C.  Quantifying uncertainty sources in an ensemble of hydrological climate-impact projections. Water Res. Res. 49, 1523-1536. · DOI
  33. Cai, X., Wang, D., Zhu, T. & Ringler, C.  Assessing the regional variability of GCM simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L02706. · DOI
  34. Celik, E., Gul, M., Yucesan, M. & Mete, S.  Stochastic multi- criteria decision-making: an overview to methods and applications. Beni-Suef Univ. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 8, 1-11. · DOI
  35. Chen, S. M.  A new method for handling multicriteria fuzzy decision making problems. Cyber. Systems 25, 409-420. · DOI
  36. Chen, S. M. & Wang, C. Y.  Fuzzy decision making systems based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Inform. Sci. 242, 1-21. · DOI
  37. Chen, J., Brissette, F. P., Lucas-Picher, P. & Caya, D.  Impacts of weighting climate models for hydro-meteorological climate change studies. J. Hydrol. 549, 534-546. · DOI
  38. Cheng, G. H., Huang, G. H., Dong, C., Zhu, J. X., Zhou, X. & Yao, Y.  An evaluation of CMIP5 GCM simulations over the Athabasca river basin, Canada. J. Amer. Water Works Assoc. 33, 823-843. · DOI
  39. Chhin, R. & Yoden, S.  Ranking CMIP5 GCMs for model ensemble selection on regional scale: case study of the Indochina Region. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 123, 8949-8974. · DOI
  40. Chu, T. C. & Yeh, W. C.  Fuzzy multiple criteria decision- making via an inverse function-based total utility approach. Soft Comput. 22, 7423-7433. · DOI
  41. Claudia, C. S., Monteiro, A. T., Azevedo, J. C., Honrado, J. P. & Nunes, J. P.  Climate change impacts on water resources and reservoir management: uncertainty and adaptation for a mountain catchment in Northeast Portugal. Water Resour. Manage. 31, 3355-3370. · DOI
  42. Cook, L. M., Anderson, C. J. & Samaras, C.  Framework for incorporating downscaled climate output into existing engineering methods: application to precipitation frequency curves. J. Infra. Sys. 23. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS. 1943-555X.0000382. · DOI
  43. Dalton, L., Ballarin, V. & Brun, M.  Clustering algorithms: on learning, validation, performance, and applications to genomics. Curr. Genom. 10, 430-445. · DOI
  44. Daraio, J. A.  Potential climate change impacts on streamflow and recharge in two watersheds on the New jersey coastal plain. J. Hydrol. Eng. 22, 05017002. · DOI
  45. Das, J. & Umamahesh, N. V.  Uncertainty and nonstationarity in streamflow extremes under climate change scenarios over a river basin. J. Hydrol. Eng. 22. https://doi.org/10.1061/ (ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001571. · DOI · Paper page
  46. Doulabian, S., Golian, S., Toosi, A. S. & Murphy, C.  Evaluating the effects of climate change on precipitation and temperature for Iran using RCP scenarios. J. Water Clim. Change. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2020.114. · DOI
  47. Duan, H., Zhang, G., Wang, S. & Fan, Y.  Robust climate change research: a review on multi-model analysis. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 033001. · DOI
  48. Ehteram, M., Mousavi, S. F., Karami, H., Farzin, S., Singh, V. P., Chau, K. W. & El-Shafie, A.  Reservoir operation based on evolutionary algorithms and multi-criteria decision- making under climate change and uncertainty. J. Hydroinform. 20, 332-355. · DOI
  49. Errasti, I., Ezcurra, A., Sáenz, J. & Ibarra-Berastegi, G.  Validation of IPCC AR4 models over the Iberian Peninsula. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 103, 61-79. · DOI
  50. Fahimi, F., Yaseen, Z. M. & El-shafie, A.  Application of soft computing based hybrid models in hydrological variables modeling: a comprehensive review. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 128, 875-903. · DOI
  51. Farzaneh, M. R., Eslamian, S., Samadi, S. Z. & Akbarpour, A.  An appropriate general circulation model (GCM) to investigate climate change impact. Int. J. Hydrol. Sci. Tech. 2, 34-47. · DOI
  52. Fu, G., Liu, Z., Charles, S. P., Xu, Z. & Yao, Z.  A score-based method for assessing the performance of GCMs: a case study of southeastern Australia. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 18, 4154-4167. · DOI
  53. Gleckler, P. J., Taylor, K. E. & Doutriaux, C.  Performance metrics for climate models. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D06104. · DOI · Paper page
  54. Gómez-Navarro, J. J., Montávez, J. P., Jerez, S., Jiménez-Guerrero, P. & Zorita, E.  What is the role of the observational dataset in the evaluation and scoring of climate models? Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L24701. · DOI
  55. Goodwin, D., Raffin, M., Jeffrey, P. & Smith, H. M.  Stakeholder evaluations of risk interventions for non-potable recycled water schemes: a case study. Sci Total Environ. 674, 439-450. · DOI
  56. Grose, M. R., Brown, J. N., Narsey, S., Brown, J. R., Murphy, B. F., Langlais, C., Gupta, A. S., Moise, A. F. & Irving, D. B.  Assessment of the CMIP5 global climate model simulations of the western tropical Pacific climate system and comparison to CMIP3. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 3382-3399. · DOI
  57. Gu, H., Yu, Z., Wang, J., Wang, G., Yang, T., Ju, Q., Yang, C., Xu, F. & Fan, C.  Assessing CMIP5 general circulation model simulations of precipitation and temperature over China. Int. J. Climatol. 35, 2431-2440. · DOI
  58. Guilyardi, E., Wittenberg, A., Fedorov, A., Collins, M., Wang, C., Capotondi, A., Oldenborgh, G. J. V. & Stockdale, T.  Understanding El Niño in ocean-atmosphere general circulation models. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 90, 325-340. · DOI
  59. Gulizia, C. & Camillonia, I.  Comparative analysis of the ability of a set of CMIP3 and CMIP5 global climate models to represent precipitation in South America. Int. J. Climatol. 35, 583-595. · DOI
  60. Hagemann, S., Chen, C., Clark, D. B., Folwell, S., Gosling, S. N., Haddeland, I., Hanasaki, N., Heinke, J., Ludwig, F., Voss, F. & Wiltshire, A. J.  Climate change impact on available water resources obtained using multiple global climate and hydrology models. Earth Syst. Dyn. 4, 129-144. · DOI
  61. Halkidi, M., Batistakis, Y. & Vazirgiannis, M.  On clustering validation techniques. J. Intel. Inform. Sys. 17, 107-145. · DOI
  62. Hämäläinen, J., Jauhiainen, S. & Kärkkäinen, T.  Comparison of internal clustering validation indices for prototype-based clustering. Algorithms 10, 105. · DOI
  63. Hargreaves, J. C. & Annan, J. D.  Can we trust climate models? WIREs Clim. Change 5, 435-440. · DOI
  64. He, W., Zhao, S., Wu, Q., Jiang, Y. & Wan, S.  Simulating evaluation and projection of the climate zones over China by CMIP5 models. Clim. Dyn. 52, 2597-2612. · DOI
  65. Herger, N., Abramowitz, G., Knutti, R., Angélil, O., Lehmann, K. & Sanderson, B. M.  Selecting a climate model subset to optimise key ensemble properties. Earth Syst. Dyn. 9, 135-151. · DOI
  66. Hughes, D. A., Kingston, D. G. & Todd, M. C.  Uncertainty in water resources availability in the Okavango River Basin as a result of climate change. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 931-941. · DOI
  67. Hughes, D. A., Mantel, S. & Mohobane, T.  An assessment of the skill of downscaled GCM outputs in simulating historical patterns of rainfall variability in South Africa. Hydrol. Res. 45, 134-147. · DOI
  68. Hussain, M., Yusof, K. W., Mustafa, M. R. U., Mahmood, R. & Jia, S.  Evaluation of CMIP5 models for projection of future precipitation change in Bornean tropical rainforests. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 134, 423-440. · DOI
  69. Jackson, C. R., Meister, R. & Prudhomme, C.  Modelling the effects of climate change and its uncertainty on UK chalk groundwater resources from an ensemble of global climate model projections. J. Hydrol. 399, 12-28. · DOI
  70. Jain, S., Salunke, P., Mishra, S. K. & Sahany, S.  Performance of CMIP5 models in the simulation of Indian summer monsoon. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 137, 1429-1447. · DOI
  71. Jena, P., Azad, S. & Rajeevan, M. N.  CMIP5 projected changes in the annual cycle of Indian monsoon rainfall. Climate 4, 14. · DOI
  72. Jia, K., Ruan, Y., Yang, Y. & Zhang, C.  Assessing the performance of CMIP5 global climate models for simulating future precipitation change in the Tibetan Plateau. Water 11, 1771. · DOI
  73. Jiang, D., Tiana, Z. & Langa, X.  Reliability of climate models for China through the IPCC third to fifth assessment reports. Int. J. Climatol. 36, 1114-1133. · DOI
  74. Jobst, A. M., Kingston, D. G., Cullen, N. J. & Schmidt, J.  Intercomparison of different uncertainty sources in hydrological climate change projections for an alpine catchment (upper Clutha River, New Zealand). Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 3125-3142. · DOI
  75. Johnson, F. & Sharma, A.  Measurement of GCM skill in predicting variables relevant for hydroclimatological assessments. J. Climate 22, 4373-4382. · DOI
  76. Johnson, F., Westra, S., Sharma, A. & Pitman, A. J.  An assessment of GCM skill in simulating persistence across multiple time scales. J. Climate 24, 3609-3623. · DOI
  77. Joubert, A. M. & Hewitson, B. C.  Simulating present and future climates of southern Africa using general circulation models. Progress in Phys. Geog. 21, 51-78. · DOI
  78. Jury, M. W., Prein, A. F., Truhetz, H. & Gobiet, A.  Evaluation of CMIP5 models in the context of dynamical downscaling over Europe. J. Climate 28, 5575-5582. · DOI
  79. Kamworapan, S. & Surussavadee, C.  Evaluation of CMIP5 global climate models for simulating climatological temperature and precipitation for Southeast Asia. Adv. Meteorol. 2019, 1-18. · DOI
  80. Khan, N., Shahid, S., Ahmed, K., Ismail, T., Nawaz, N. & Son, M.  Performance assessment of general circulation model in simulating daily precipitation and temperature using multiple gridded datasets. Water 10, 1793. · DOI · Paper page
  81. Khayyun, T. S., Alwan, I. A. & Hayder, A. M.  Selection of suitable precipitation CMIP-5 sets of GCMs for Iraq using a symmetrical uncertainty filter. IOP Conf. Series: Mat. Sci. Eng. 671, 1-12.
  82. Knutti, R.  Why are climate models reproducing the observed global surface warming so well? Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L18704. · DOI
  83. Knutti, R. & Sedlácek, J.  Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projections. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 369-373. · DOI · Paper page
  84. Knutti, R., Furrer, R., Tebaldi, C., Cermak, J. & Meehl, G. A.  Challenges in combining projections from multiple climate models. J. Climate 23, 2739-2758. · DOI · Paper page
  85. Kohonen, T.  Self Organization and Associative Memory. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
  86. Latif, M., Hannachi, A. & Syed, F.  Analysis of rainfall trends over Indo-Pakistan summer monsoon and related dynamics based on CMIP5 climate model simulations. Int. J. Climatol. 38 (S1), e577-e595. · DOI
  87. Le, T. & Bae, D. H.  Evaluating the utility of IPCC AR4 GCMs for hydrological application in South Korea. Water Res. Manage. 27, 3227-3246. · DOI
  88. Legates, D. R. & McCabe, G. J.  Evaluating the use of goodness-of-fit measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Res. Res. 35, 233-241. · DOI
  89. Liu, Z., Xu, Z., Fu, G. & Yao, Z.  Assessing the hydrological impacts of climate change in the headwater catchment of the Tarim River basin. China. Hydrol. Res. 44, 834-849. · DOI
  90. Lutz, A. F., ter Maat, H. W., Biemans, H., Shrestha, A. B., Wester, P. & Immerzeel, W. W.  Selecting representative climate models for climate change impact studies: an advanced envelope-based selection approach. Int. J. Climatol. 36, 3988-4005. · DOI
  91. Macadam, I., Pitman, A. J., Whetton, P. H. & Abramowitz, G.  Ranking climate models by performance using actual values and anomalies: implications for climate change impact assessments. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L16704. · DOI
  92. Mahmood, R., Jia, S., Tripathi, N. & Shrestha, S.  Precipitation extended linear scaling method for correcting gcm precipitation and its evaluation and implication in the Transboundary Jhelum River Basin. Atmosphere 9, 160. · DOI
  93. Mandal, S., Arunkumar, R., Breach, P. A. & Simonovic, S. P.  Reservoir operations under changing climate conditions: hydropower-production perspective. J. Water Res. Plan. Manage. 145. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943- 5452.0001061. · DOI
  94. Mani, A. & Tsai, F. T. C.  Ensemble averaging methods for quantifying uncertainty sources in modeling climate change impact on runoff projection. J. Hydrol. Eng. 22. https://doi. org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001487. · DOI
  95. Mareschal, B.  Stochastic multicriteria decision making and uncertainty. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 26, 58-64. · DOI
  96. Marttunen, M., Lienert, J. & Belton, V.  Structuring problems for multi-criteria decision analysis in practice: a literature review of method combinations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 263, 1-17. · DOI
  97. McMahon, T. A., Peel, M. C. & Karoly, D. J.  Assessment of precipitation and temperature data from CMIP3 global climate models for hydrologic simulation. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 19, 361-377. · DOI · Paper page
  98. Meher, J. K., Das, L., Akhter, J., Benestad, R. E. & Mezghani, A.  Performance of CMIP3 and CMIP5 GCMs to simulate observed rainfall characteristics over the Western Himalayan region. J. Climate 30, 7777-7799. · DOI
  99. Mehran, A., Kouchak, A. A. & Phillips, T. J.  Evaluation of CMIP5 continental precipitation simulations relative to satellite based gauge-adjusted observations. J Geophys Res: Atm. 119 (4), 1695-1707.
  100. Mendlik, T. & Gobiet, A.  Selecting climate simulations for impact studies based on multivariate patterns of climate change. Clim. Change 135, 381-393. · DOI
  101. Miao, C., Duan, Q., Sun, Q., Huang, Y., Kong, D., Yang, T., Ye, A., Di, Z. & Gong, W.  Assessment of CMIP5 climate models and projected temperature changes over northern Eurasia. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 055007. · DOI
  102. Minville, M., Brissette, F. & Leconte, R.  Impacts and uncertainty of climate change on water resource management of the Peribonka River System (Canada). · DOI
  103. Moise, A. F. & Delage, F. P.  New climate model metrics based on object-orientated pattern matching of rainfall. J. Geophys. Res. 116, D12108. · DOI
  104. Mujumdar, P. P. & Nagesh Kumar, D.  Floods in A Changing Climate: Hydrologic Modeling. International Hydrology Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  105. Mustafa, S. M. T., Hasan, M. M., Saha, A. K., Rannu, R. P., Uytven, E. V., Willems, P. & Huysmans, M.  Multi-model approach to quantify groundwater-level prediction uncertainty using an ensemble of global climate models and multiple abstraction scenarios. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 23, 2279-2303. · DOI
  106. Najafi, M. R., Moradkhani, H. & Jung, I. W.  Assessing the uncertainties of hydrologic model selection in climate change impact studies. Hydrol. Process. 25 (18), 2814-2826. · DOI
  107. Niel, J. D., Uytven, E. V. & Willems, P.  Uncertainty analysis of climate change impact on river flow extremes based on a large multi-model ensemble. Water Res. Manage. 33, 4319-4333. · DOI
  108. Noor, M., Ismail, T., Shahid, S., Ahmed, K., Chung, E. S. & Nawaz, N.  Selection of CMIP5 multi-model ensemble for the projection of spatial and temporal variability of rainfall in peninsular Malaysia. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 138, 999-1012. · DOI
  109. Northrop, P. J. & Chandler, R. E.  Quantifying sources of uncertainty in projections of future climate. J. Climate 27, 8793-8808. · DOI
  110. Nourani, V., Paknezhad, N. J., Sharghi, E. & Khosravid, A.  Estimation of prediction interval in ANN-based multi-GCMs downscaling of hydro-climatologic parameters. J. Hydrol. 579, 124226. · DOI
  111. Ongoma, V., Chen, H. & Gao, C.  Evaluation of CMIP5 twentieth century rainfall simulation over the equatorial East Africa. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 135, 893-910. · DOI
  112. Opricovic, S. & Tzeng, G. H.  Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 156, 445-455. · DOI
  113. Osman, Y., Al-Ansari, N., Abdellatif, M., Aljawad, S. B. & Knutsson, S.  Expected future precipitation in Central Iraq using LARS-WG stochastic weather generator. Engineering 6, 948-959. · DOI
  114. Otieno, V. O. & Anyah, R. O.  CMIP5 simulated climate conditions of the Greater Horn of Africa (GHA) part 1: contemporary climate. Clim. Dyn. 41, 2081-2097. · DOI
  115. Pandey, B. K., Khare, D., Kawasaki, A. & Mishra, P. K.  Climate change impact assessment on blue and green water by coupling of representative CMIP5 climate models with physical based hydrological model. Water Res. Manage. 33, 141-158. · DOI
  116. Panjwani, S., Naresh Kumar, S., Ahuja, L. & Islam, A.  Prioritization of global climate models using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and reliability index. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 137, 2381-2392. · DOI
  117. Pei, Z., Liu, J., Hao, F. & Zhou, B.  FLM-TOPSIS: The fuzzy linguistic multiset TOPSIS method and its application in linguistic decision making. Inform. Fus. 45, 266-281. · DOI
  118. Perez, J., Menendez, M., Mendez, F. J. & Losada, I. J.  Evaluating the performance of CMIP3 and CMIP5 global climate models over the north-east Atlantic region. Clim. Dyn. 43, 2663-2680. · DOI
  119. Perkins, S. E., Pitman, A. J., Holbrook, N. J. & McAneney, J.  Evaluation of the AR4 climate models' simulated daily maximum temperature, minimum temperature, and precipitation over Australia using probability density functions. J. Climate 20, 4356-4376. · DOI
  120. Pierce, D. W., Barnett, T. P., Santer, B. D. & Gleckler, P. J.  Selecting global climate models for regional climate change studies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 8441-8446. · DOI
  121. Ploskas, N. & Papathanasiou, J.  A decision support system for multiple criteria alternative ranking using TOPSIS and VIKOR in fuzzy and nonfuzzy environments. Fuz. Sets Sys. 377, 1-30. · DOI
  122. Prasanna, V.  Regional climate change scenarios over South Asia in the CMIP5 coupled climate model simulations. Met. Atm. Phy. 127, 561-578. · DOI
  123. Radic ´, V. & Clarke, G. K. C.  Evaluation of IPCC models' performance in simulating late-twentieth-century climatologies and weather patterns over North America. J. Climate 24, 5257-5274. · DOI
  124. Raghavan, S. V., Liu, J., Nguyen, N. S., Vu, M. T. & Liong, S. Y.  Assessment of CMIP5 historical simulations of rainfall over Southeast Asia. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 132, 989-1002. · DOI
  125. Raju, K. S. & Nagesh Kumar, D.  Classification of Indian meteorological stations using cluster and fuzzy cluster analysis, and kohonen artificial neural networks. Nordic Hydrol. 38, 303-314. · DOI
  126. Raju, K. S. & Nagesh Kumar, D. a Multicriterion Analysis in Engineering and Management. Prentice Hall India, New Delhi, India.
  127. Raju, K. S. & Nagesh Kumar, D. b Ranking of global climatic models for India using multicriterion analysis. Clim. Res. 60, 103-117. · DOI · Paper page
  128. Raju, K. S. & Nagesh Kumar, D. a Ranking general circulation models for India using TOPSIS. J. Water Clim. Change 6, 288-299. · DOI
  129. Raju, K. S. & Nagesh Kumar, D. b Fuzzy approach to rank global climate models. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 415 Springer, pp. 53-61.
  130. Raju, K. S. & Nagesh Kumar, D.  Selection of global climate models for India using cluster analysis. J. Water Clim. Change 7, 764-774. · DOI
  131. Raju, K. S. & Nagesh Kumar, D.  Impact of Climate Change on Water Resources-Modeling Techniques and Case Studies. Springer Climate Series, Springer, Singapore.
  132. Raju, K. S., Duckstein, L. & Arondel, C.  Multicriterion analysis for sustainable water resources planning: a case study in Spain. Water Res. Manage. 14, 435-456. · DOI
  133. Raju, K. S., Sonali, P. & Nagesh Kumar, D.  Ranking of CMIP5 based global climate models for India using compromise programming. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 128, 563-574. · DOI
  134. Ruan, Y., Yao, Z., Wang, R. & Liu, Z.  Ranking of CMIP5 GCM skills in simulating observed precipitation over the Lower Mekong Basin, using an improved score-based method. Water 10, 1868. · DOI
  135. Rupp, D. E., Abatzoglou, J. T., Hegewisch, K. C. & Mote, P. W.  Evaluation of CMIP5 20th century climate simulations for the Pacific Northwest USA. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 10884-10906. · DOI
  136. Saeed, F. & Athar, H.  Assessment of simulated and projected climate change in Pakistan using IPCC AR4-based AOGCMs. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 134, 967-980. · DOI
  137. Saki, M., Esfahani, M. T. & Soltani, S.  A scenario-based modeling of climate change impacts on the aboveground net primary production in rangelands of central Iran. Environ. Earth Sci. 77, 670. · DOI
  138. Salman, S. A., Shahid, S., Ismail, T., Ahmed, K. & Wang, X. J.  Selection of climate models for projection of spatiotemporal changes in temperature of Iraq with uncertainties. Atmos Res. 213, 509-522. · DOI · Paper page
  139. Salunke, P., Jain, S. & Mishra, S. K.  Performance of the CMIP5 models in the simulation of the Himalaya-Tibetan Plateau monsoon. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 137, 909-928. · DOI
  140. Saraiva, S., Meier, H. E. M., Andersson, H., Höglund, A., Dieterich, C., Gröger, M., Hordoir, R. & Eilola, K.  Uncertainties in projections of the Baltic Sea ecosystem driven by an ensemble of global climate models. Front. Earth Sci. 6, 1-18. · DOI
  141. Sarthi, P., Kumar, P. & Ghosh, S.  Possible future rainfall over Gangetic Plains (GP), India, in multi-model simulations of CMIP3 and CMIP5. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 124, 691-701. · DOI
  142. Sayadi, A., Beydokhti, N. T., Najarchi, M. & Najafizadeh, M. M.  Investigation into the effects of climatic change on temperature, rainfall, and runoff of the Doroudzan catchment, Iran, using the ensemble approach of CMIP3 climate models. Adv. Meteorol. 2019 (1), 1-16. · DOI
  143. Schaller, N., Mahlstein, I., Cermak, J. & Knutti, R.  Analyzing precipitation projections: a comparison of different approaches to climate model evaluation. J. Geophys. Res. 116, D10118. · DOI
  144. Schepen, A. & Wang, Q. J.  Toward accurate and reliable forecasts of Australian seasonal rainfall by calibrating and merging multiple coupled GCMs. Monthly Weather Review 141, 4554-4563. · DOI
  145. Schmidt, G. A., Ruedy, R., Hansen, J. E., Aleinov, I., Bell, N., Bauer, M., Bauer, S., Cairns, B., Canuto, V., Cheng, Y., Genio, A. D., Faluvegi, G., Friend, A. D., Hall, T. M., Hu, Y., Kelley, M., Kiang, N. Y., Koch, D., Lacis, A. A., Lerner, J., Lo, K. K., Miller, R. L., Nazarenko, L., Oinas, V., Perlwitz, J., Perlwitz, J., Rind, D., Romanou, A., Russell, G. L., Sato, M., Shindell, D. T., Stone, P. H., Sun, S., Tausnev, N., Thresher, D. & Yao, M. S.  Present-day atmospheric simulations using GISS model: comparison to in situ, satellite and reanalysis data. J. Climate 19, 153-192. · DOI
  146. Schuster, Z. T., Potter, K. W. & Liebl, D. S.  Assessing the effects of climate change on precipitation and flood damage in Wisconsin. J. Hydrol. Eng. 17, 888-894. · DOI
  147. Smith, I. & Chandler, E.  Refining rainfall projections for the Murray Darling Basin of south-east Australia-the effect of sampling model results based on performance. Clim. Change 102, 377-393. · DOI
  148. Song, J. Y. & Chung, E. S.  Robustness, uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of the TOPSIS method for quantitative climate change vulnerability: a case study of flood damage. Water Res. Manage. 30, 4751-4771. · DOI
  149. Sood, A. & Smakhtin, V.  Global hydrological models: a review. Hydrol. Sci. J. 60, 549-565. · DOI
  150. Sreelatha, K. & Raj, P. A.  Ranking of CMIP5-based global climate models using standard performance metrics for Telangana region in the southern part of India. ISH J. Hyd. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2019.1634648 · DOI
  151. Sridhar, V., Kang, H. & Ali, S. A.  Human-induced alterations to land use and climate and their responses on hydrology and water management in the Mekong River basin. Water 11, 1307. · DOI
  152. Su, F., Duan, X., Chen, D., Hao, Z. & Cuo, L.  Evaluation of the Global Climate Models in the CMIP5 over the Tibetan Plateau. J. Climate 26, 3187-3208. · DOI
  153. Sultana, R. & Choi, M.  Sensitivity of streamflow response in the snow-dominated Sierra Nevada watershed using projected CMIP5 data. J. Hydrol. Eng. 23, 05018015. · DOI
  154. Tan, M. L., Ficklin, D. L., Ibrahim, A. L. & Yusop, Z.  Impacts and uncertainties of climate change on streamflow of the Johor River Basin, Malaysia using a CMIP5 general circulation model ensemble. J. Water Clim. Change 5, 676-695. · DOI
  155. Tavana, M., Mavi, R. K., Santos-Arteaga, F. J. & Doust, E. R.  An extended VIKOR method using stochastic data and subjective judgments. Comp. Indus. Eng. 97, 240-247. · DOI
  156. Tian, Y., Xu, Y. P., Booij, M. J. & Cao, L.  Impact assessment of multiple uncertainty sources on high flows under climate change. Hydrol. Res. 47, 61-74. · DOI
  157. Tian, Y., Xu, Y. P., Ma, C. & Wang, G.  Modeling the impact of climate change on low flows in Xiangjiang river basin with Bayesian averaging method. J. Hydrol. Eng. 22, 04017035. · DOI
  158. Tokarska, K. B., Stolpe, M. B., Sippel, S., Fischer, E. M., Smith, C. J., Lehner, F. & Knutti, R.  Past warming trend constrains future warming in CMIP6 models. Sci. Adv. 6 (12), eaaz9549. · DOI
  159. Vaghefi, S. A., Keykhai, M., Jahanbakhshi, F., Sheikholeslami, J., Ahmadi, A., Yang, H. & Abbaspour, K. C.  The future of extreme climate in Iran. Sci. Rep. 9, 1464. · DOI
  160. Vandana, K., Islam, A., Sarthi, P. P., Sikka, A. K. & Kapil, H.  Assessment of potential impact of climate change on streamflow: a case study of the Brahmani River basin, India. J. Water Clim. Change 10 (3), 624-641. · DOI
  161. Venkataraman, K., Spandana, T., Medina, A. & Perry, J.  21st century drought outlook for major climate divisions of texas based on CMIP5 multimodel ensemble: implications for water resource management. J. Hydrol. 534, 300-316. · DOI
  162. Walsh, J. E., Chapman, W. L., Romanovsky, V., Christensen, J. H. & Stendel, M.  Global climate model performance over Alaska and Greenland. J. Climate 21, 6156-6174. · DOI · Paper page
  163. Wang, B., Liu, D. L., Macadam, I., Alexander, L. V., Abramowitz, G. & Yu, Q.  Multi-model ensemble projections of future extreme temperature change using a statistical downscaling method in south eastern Australia. Clim. Change 138, 85-98. · DOI
  164. Wang, B., Zheng, L., Liu, D. L., Ji, F., Clark, A. & Yu, Q.  Using multi-model ensembles of CMIP5 global climate models to reproduce observed monthly rainfall and temperature with machine learning methods in Australia. Int. J. Climatol. 38, 4891-4902. · DOI
  165. Wang, H. M., Chen, J., Xu, C. Y., Chen, H., Guo, S., Xie, P. & Li, X.  Does the weighting of climate simulations result in a more reasonable quantification of hydrological impacts? Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 23, 4033-4050. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2019-24. · DOI
  166. Watterson, I. G., Bathols, J. & Heady, C.  What influences the skill of climate models over the continents? Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 95, 689-700. · DOI
  167. Weiland, F. S., Van Beek, L. P. H., Weerts, A. H. & Bierkens, M. F. P.  Extracting information from an ensemble of GCMs to reliably assess future global runoff change. J. Hydrol. 412-413, 66-75. · DOI
  168. Wilby, R. L. & Harris, I.  A framework for assessing uncertainties in climate change impacts: low flow scenarios for the river Thames, UK. Water Res. Res. 42, W02419. · DOI
  169. Wu, Z., Ahmad, J. & Xu, J.  A group decision making framework based on fuzzy VIKOR approach for machine tool selection with linguistic information. Appl. Soft Comput. 42, 314-324. · DOI
  170. Wu, Y., Zhong, P., Xu, B., Zhu, F. & Fu, J.  Evaluation of global climate model on performances of precipitation simulation and prediction in the Huaihe River basin. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 133, 191-204. · DOI
  171. Xiong, W. & Huan, Q. H.  A extended TOPSIS method for the stochastic multi-criteria decision making problem through interval estimation. In: 2nd International Workshop on Intelligent Systems and Applications, 22-23 May 2010, Wuhan, China, pp. 1-4.
  172. Xuan, W., Ma, C., Kang, L., Gu, H., Pan, S. & Xu, Y. P.  Evaluating historical simulations of CMIP5 GCMs for key climatic variables in Zhejiang Province, China. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 128, 207-222. · DOI
  173. Yan, R., Huang, J., Wang, Y., Gao, J. & Qi, L.  Modeling the combined impact of future climate and land use changes on streamflow of Xinjiang Basin, China. Hydrol. Res. 47, 356-372. · DOI
  174. Yan, M., Wang, B., Liu, J., Zhu, A., Ning, L. & Cao, J.  Understanding the Australian monsoon change during the Last Glacial Maximum with a multi-model ensemble. Clim. Past. 14, 2037-2052. · DOI
  175. You, Q., Jiang, Z., Wang, D., Pepin, N. & Kang, S.  Simulation of temperature extremes in the Tibetan Plateau from CMIP5 models and comparison with gridded observations. Clim Dyn. 51, 355-369. · DOI
  176. Zamani, R. & Berndtsson, R.  Evaluation of CMIP5 models for west and southwest Iran using TOPSIS-based method. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 137, 533-543. · DOI
  177. Zamani, R., Akhond-Ali, A., Roozbahani, A. & Fattahi, R.  Risk assessment of agricultural water requirement based on a multi-model ensemble framework, southwest of Iran. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 129, 1109-1121. · DOI
  178. Zhang, X. L. & Yan, X. D.  Deficiencies in the simulation of the geographic distribution of climate types by global climate models. Clim. Dyn. 46, 2749-2757. First received 2 July 2019; accepted in revised form 7 April 2020. Available online 13 May 2020 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Raju, K. S., & Kumar, D. N.
Affiliations
  • Department of Civil Engineering, BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus, Hyderabad 500 078, India
  • Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India; Divecha Centre for Climate Change, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India and Interdisciplinary Centre for Water Research, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India
Venue
Journal of Water and Climate Change
Publisher
IWA Publishing
Published
2020-05-13
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
577-599
ISSN
  • 2040-2244
  • 2408-9354
DOI
10.2166/wcc.2020.128
Cited by
200
References
2
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor, 1 d)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review