[1] Precipitation downscaling improves the coarse resolution and poor representation of precipitation in global climate models and helps end users to assess the likely hydrological impacts of climate change. This paper integrates perspectives from meteorologists, climatologists, statisticians, and hydrologists to identify generic end user (in particular, impact modeler) needs and to discuss downscaling capabilities and gaps. End users need a reliable representation of precipitation intensities and temporal and spatial variability, as well as physical consistency, independent of region and season. In addition to presenting dynamical downscaling, we review perfect prognosis statistical downscaling, model output statistics, and weather generators, focusing on recent developments to improve the representation of spacetime variability. Furthermore, evaluation techniques to assess downscaling skill are presented. Downscaling adds considerable value to projections from global climate models. Remaining gaps are uncertainties arising from sparse data; representation of extreme summer precipitation, subdaily precipitation, and full precipitation fields on fine scales; capturing changes in small-scale processes and their feedback on large scales; and errors inherited from the driving global climate model.

Quantile mapping is routinely applied to correct biases of regional climate model simulations compared to observational data. If the observations are of similar resolution as the regional climate model, quantile mapping is a feasible approach. However, if the observations are of much higher resolution, quantile mapping also attempts to bridge this scale mismatch. Here, it is shown for daily precipitation that such quantile mapping-based downscaling is not feasible but introduces similar problems as inflation of perfect prognosis (''prog'') downscaling: the spatial and temporal structure of the corrected time series is misrepresented, the drizzle effect for area means is overcorrected, area-mean extremes are overestimated, and trends are affected.To overcome these problems, stochastic bias correction is required.

Biases in climate model simulations introduce biases in subsequent impact simulations. Therefore, bias correction methods are operationally used to post-process regional climate projections. However, many problems have been identified, and some researchers question the very basis of the approach. Here we demonstrate that a typical cross-validation is unable to identify improper use of bias correction. Several examples show the limited ability of bias correction to correct and to downscale variability, and demonstrate that bias correction can cause implausible climate change signals. Bias correction cannot overcome major model errors, and naive application might result in ill-informed adaptation decisions. We conclude with a list of recommendations and suggestions for future research to reduce, post-process, and cope with climate model biases

Climate models are our major source of knowledge about climate change. The impacts of climate change are often quantified by impact models. Whereas impact models typically require high resolution unbiased input data, global and regional climate models are in general biased, their resolution is often lower than desired. Thus, many users of climate model data apply some form of bias correction and downscaling. A fundamental assumption of bias correction is that the considered climate model produces skillful input for a bias correction, including a plausible representation of climate change. Current bias correction methods cannot plausibly correct climate change trends, and have limited ability to downscale. Cross validation of marginal aspects is not sufficient to evaluate bias correction and needs to be complemented by further analyses. Future research should address the development of stochastic models for downscaling and approaches to explicitly incorporate process understanding. Keywords Regional climate modelling • Bias correction • Downscaling • Statistical post-processing • Model output statistics This article is part of the Topical Collection on Advances in Modeling

Abstract. In this paper, we present a detailed evaluation of cross wavelet analysis of bivariate time series. We develop a statistical test for zero wavelet coherency based on Monte Carlo simulations. If at least one of the two processes considered is Gaussian white noise, an approximative formula for the critical value can be utilized. In a second part, typical pitfalls of wavelet cross spectra and wavelet coherency are discussed. The wavelet cross spectrum appears to be not suitable for significance testing the interrelation between two processes. Instead, one should rather apply wavelet coherency. Furthermore we investigate problems due to multiple testing. Based on these results, we show that coherency between ENSO and NAO is an artefact for most of the time from 1900 to 1995. However, during a distinct period from around 1920 to 1940, significant coherency between the two phenomena occurs.

No abstract

In low-lying coastal areas, the co-occurrence of high sea level and precipitation resulting in large runoff may cause compound flooding (CF). When the two hazards interact, the resulting impact can be worse than when they occur individually. Both storm surges and heavy precipitation, as well as their interplay, are likely to change in response to global warming. Despite the CF relevance, a comprehensive hazard assessment beyond individual locations is missing, and no studies have examined CF in the future. Analyzing co-occurring high sea level and heavy precipitation in Europe, we show that the Mediterranean coasts are experiencing the highest CF probability in the present. However, future climate projections show emerging high CF probability along parts of the northern European coast. In several European regions, CF should be considered as a potential hazard aggravating the risk caused by mean sea level rise in the future.

Abstract. Compound events (CEs) are multivariate extreme events in which the individual contributing variables may not be extreme themselves, but their joint -dependent -occurrence causes an extreme impact. Conventional univariate statistical analysis cannot give accurate information regarding the multivariate nature of these events. We develop a conceptual model, implemented via pair-copula constructions, which allows for the quantification of the risk associated with compound events in present-day and future climate, as well as the uncertainty estimates around such risk. The model includes predictors, which could represent for instance meteorological processes that provide insight into both the involved physical mechanisms and the temporal variability of compound events. Moreover, this model enables multivariate statistical downscaling of compound events. Downscaling is required to extend the compound events' risk assessment to the past or future climate, where climate models either do not simulate realistic values of the local variables driving the events or do not simulate them at all. Based on the developed model, we study compound floods, i.e. joint storm surge and high river runoff, in Ravenna (Italy). To explicitly quantify the risk, we define the impact of compound floods as a function of sea and river levels. We use meteorological predictors to extend the analysis to the past, and get a more robust risk analysis. We quantify the uncertainties of the risk analysis, observing that they are very large due to the shortness of the available data, though this may also be the case in other studies where they have not been estimated. Ignoring the dependence between sea and river levels would result in an underestimation of risk; in particular, the expected return period of the highest compound flood observed increases from about 20 to 32 years when switching from the dependent to the independent case.