Abstract
Global climate models (GCMs) are the state-of-the-art tool for understanding climate change and predicting future. However, little research has been reported on the latest NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 product in China. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the simulated performance and drought capture utility of the NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 over China. First, the simulation skills of the 16 GCMs in NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 was evaluated by the 'DISO', a big data evaluation method. Second, the DISO framework for drought identification was constructed by coupling the Correlation Coefficient (CC), False Alarm Rate (FAR) and Probability of Detection (POD). Then, it was combined with SPI and SPEI to evaluate the drought detection capability of NEX-GDPD-CMIP6. The result shows that: (1) NEX-GDPD-CMIP6 can reproduce the spatial distribution pattern of historical precipitation and temperature, which performs well in simulating warming trend but fails to capture precipitation's fluctuation characteristics. (2) The best performing model in precipitation is ACCESS-CM2 (DISO 1.630) and in temperature is CESM2 (DISO 3.246). (3) The 16MME performs better than the best single model, indicating that multi-model ensemble can effectively reduce the uncertainty inherent in models. (4) The SPEI calculated by 16MME identifying drought well in arid, while SPI is recommended for other climate classifications of China.
HIGHLIGHTS
Sixteen multi-mode ensembles outperform the best-performing single climate model.
Enlighteningly, CC, FAR and POD are coupled to construct a DISO framework for assessing drought identification capabilities.
The drought identification ability between the SPEI and the SPI calculated from NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 over China varies greatly, with the SPEI performing well in an arid region and inferior to the SPI over other climate classifications.
INTRODUCTION
The globe has been warming rapidly in recent decades. Along with climate change, droughts caused by extreme weather are widely occurring over the world. The community is increasingly concerned about climate change research (Yuan et al. 2019). Global climate models (GCMs) are complex Earth system models, which can simulate atmospheric, oceanic, land surface and carbon cycle changes in the climate system (Nashwan & Shahid 2020). The GCMs play an important role in reproducing climate change processes, revealing evolutionary mechanisms and making future climate projections (Yang et al. 2018).
The World Climate Research Program (WCRP) launched the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) (Abro et al. 2020) to address climate change. CMIP6 is the latest version of the CMIPs, and numerous studies have confirmed the ability of CMIP6 to reproduce climate change, but the coarser spatial resolution limits its application to some extent (Eyring et al. 2016; Yang et al. 2020; Chen & Yuan 2021). To portray the impacts of climate change in a more granular way, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) implemented the NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 (NASA Earth Exchange Global Daily Downscaled Projections 6) (Thrasher et al. 2022). To our knowledge, few relevant evaluation studies for NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 GCMs in China have been found. In order to enhance confidence in future climate projections, a comprehensive assessment of NEX-GDDP-CMIP6's performance in reproducing historical climate change is necessary.
Whether the spatiotemporal characteristics of the GCM are similar to the observations is the first question to be determined (Khan et al. 2018). Various statistical metrics are used to describe the performance of GCMs. However, single statistical metrics cannot reflect GCM performance from multiple perspectives. In order to reveal the comprehensive performance of GCMs, Hu et al. (2019) proposed DISO (Distance between Indices of Simulation and Observation), which assesses the performance of GCMs in 3D perspective by measuring the spatial distance between GCMs and observations (Hu et al. 2019; Zhou et al. 2021; Lei et al. 2022). DISO overcomes some disadvantages of Taylor diagrams and provides an intuitive way to measure differences between various GCMs in the same assessment system. This paper intends to evaluate the simulation performance of NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 over China by DISO.
The ability of GCMs to reproduce the spatial and temporal characteristics of climate change is important, but their accuracy in identifying various hazards should not be neglected, especially in detecting droughts (Wei et al. 2019). Drought is widely recognized as one of the most severe and pervasive disasters in the world, with devastating effects on agriculture, ecology, water security and society. Therefore, precise monitoring of drought is crucial to ensure ecological security (Wei et al. 2019; Yuan et al. 2019). Previous studies were mostly limited to the meteorological simulation performance of climate products (Li et al. 2021), and only a few scholars focused on it to detect drought ability. Wei et al. (2019) evaluated the drought monitoring utility of IMERG satellite precipitation products by correlation coefficient (CC), false alarm rate (FAR) and probability of detection (POD). Hao & AghaKouchak (2014) evaluated the utility of the United States Drought Monitor Data (USDM) using the Multivariate Standardized Drought Index (MSDI). The above studies only take a single perspective and the comprehensive drought identification performance of climate products has not been quantified. We heuristically couple CC, FAR and POD to establish an integrated drought identification DISO framework to measure the drought capture performance of the NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 over China.
This paper intends to address the following questions: (1) Can NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 better reproduce the spatial distribution patterns and temporal evolution trends of historical precipitation and temperature over China? (2) How well does the NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 simulate precipitation and temperature over China? (3) Does NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 have powerful drought capture capability over China?
STUDY AREA AND DATA
Four climate classifications and annual average precipitation (mm) in China.
NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 (https://portal.nccs.nasa.gov/datashare/nexgddp_cmip6/) is the latest version of the NASA Earth Exchange Global Daily Downscaled Projections. It is based on the output of CMIP6 with downscaling and bias correction to generate a high-resolution dataset covering the historical and future periods. NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 provides a finer spatial resolution (0.25° × 0.25°), which can more accurately reflect climate change, and more details can be found in Thrasher et al. (2022). NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 overcomes some shortcomings of NEX-GDDP-CMIP5 and can better reflect the climate change process, but its performance in China has not been evaluated. Therefore, we selected historical (1961–2014) monthly precipitation and temperature data for 16 GCMs in NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 with the aim of assessing their simulated performance over China (Table 1).
Information on NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 climate models
No. . | Source ID . | Institution . | Country . | Grid (latitude × longitude) . |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ACCESS-CM2 | CSIRO-ARCCSS | Australia | 0.25° × 0.25° |
2 | ACCESS-ESM1-5 | CSIRO | Australia | 0.25° × 0.25° |
3 | BCC-CSM2-MR | BCC | China | 0.25° × 0.25° |
4 | CESM2 | NCAR | United States | 0.25° × 0.25° |
5 | CESM2-WACCM | NCAR | United States | 0.25° × 0.25° |
6 | CMCC-CM2-SR5 | CMCC | Italy | 0.25° × 0.25° |
7 | CMCC-ESM2 | CMCC | Italy | 0.25° × 0.25° |
8 | CNRM-CM6-1 | CNRM-CERFACS | France | 0.25° × 0.25° |
9 | IITM-ESM | CCCR-IITM | India | 0.25° × 0.25° |
10 | MIROC6 | MIROC | Japan | 0.25° × 0.25° |
11 | MPI-ESM1-2-HR | MRI-M DWD DKRZ | Germany | 0.25° × 0.25° |
12 | MPI-ESM1-2-LR | MRI-M AWI DKRZ | Germany | 0.25° × 0.25° |
13 | MRI-ESM2-0 | MRI | Japan | 0.25° × 0.25° |
14 | NorESM2-LM | NCC | Norway | 0.25° × 0.25° |
15 | NorESM2-MM | NCC | Norway | 0.25° × 0.25° |
16 | TaiESM1 | RCEC-AS | Taiwan, China | 0.25° × 0.25° |
No. . | Source ID . | Institution . | Country . | Grid (latitude × longitude) . |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ACCESS-CM2 | CSIRO-ARCCSS | Australia | 0.25° × 0.25° |
2 | ACCESS-ESM1-5 | CSIRO | Australia | 0.25° × 0.25° |
3 | BCC-CSM2-MR | BCC | China | 0.25° × 0.25° |
4 | CESM2 | NCAR | United States | 0.25° × 0.25° |
5 | CESM2-WACCM | NCAR | United States | 0.25° × 0.25° |
6 | CMCC-CM2-SR5 | CMCC | Italy | 0.25° × 0.25° |
7 | CMCC-ESM2 | CMCC | Italy | 0.25° × 0.25° |
8 | CNRM-CM6-1 | CNRM-CERFACS | France | 0.25° × 0.25° |
9 | IITM-ESM | CCCR-IITM | India | 0.25° × 0.25° |
10 | MIROC6 | MIROC | Japan | 0.25° × 0.25° |
11 | MPI-ESM1-2-HR | MRI-M DWD DKRZ | Germany | 0.25° × 0.25° |
12 | MPI-ESM1-2-LR | MRI-M AWI DKRZ | Germany | 0.25° × 0.25° |
13 | MRI-ESM2-0 | MRI | Japan | 0.25° × 0.25° |
14 | NorESM2-LM | NCC | Norway | 0.25° × 0.25° |
15 | NorESM2-MM | NCC | Norway | 0.25° × 0.25° |
16 | TaiESM1 | RCEC-AS | Taiwan, China | 0.25° × 0.25° |
Precipitation and temperature observations (1961–2014) of CN05.1 (Wu & Gao 2013) were selected as references to compare and validate the output of NEX-GDDP-CMIP6. The CN05.1 dataset was obtained based on the interpolation of 2,416 meteorological station observations and has been widely used as an evaluation reference for GCMs output (Xin et al. 2020). CN05.1 has the same spatial resolution as NEX-GDDP-CMIP6, which makes the analysis and comparison possible.
METHODOLOGY
Climate model evaluation
We chose the conventional CC, relative bias (BIAS), mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE) to quantitatively evaluate the error characteristics of NEX-GDDP-CMIP6. The optimal value of CC is 1, and the rest of the indicators are 0. Among them, the CC portrays the linear fit degree between the evaluation object (NEX-GDDP-CMIP6) and observation, the BIAS describes the error, the MAE reflects the dispersion and the RMSE measures the systematic deviation. These indicators are calculated by the following formula:
Drought index
Standardized Precipitation Index
Standardized Precipitation Evaporation Index
Variations in temperature largely influence drought, and the Standardized Precipitation Evaporation Index (SPEI) is another suitable choice for drought detection because it contains information on potential evapotranspiration. The SPEI was proposed by Vicente-Serrano et al. (2010), which considers the effect of potential evapotranspiration on drought in the context of global warming. The SPEI adds an evapotranspiration component to describe the water balance and replaces precipitation with the difference between precipitation and potential evapotranspiration as an input variable (Faiz et al. 2020). Since the SPEI calculation process has the addition of the evapotranspiration component, which compensates the disadvantage of the singularity of meteorological variables in the SPI calculation, it has been widely used in climate change research in recent years. For the specific calculation process, refer to Vicente-Serrano et al. (2010).
Drought detection capability assessment
Distance between Indices of Simulation and Observation (DISO)
RESULTS
Spatial and temporal characteristics of CMIP6 high-resolution data
Trend lines for mean annual precipitation and temperature (1961–2014) for China. Shaded areas show the range of models, trend lines for models with one simulation are shown as thin lines, multi-model ensembles (thick blue lines) and observations (thick red lines). Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/nh.2023.140.
Trend lines for mean annual precipitation and temperature (1961–2014) for China. Shaded areas show the range of models, trend lines for models with one simulation are shown as thin lines, multi-model ensembles (thick blue lines) and observations (thick red lines). Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/nh.2023.140.
The mean temperature evolution trends over time are broadly consistent for all models (including 16MME), capturing the variability and general trends observed in the historical period (Figure 3(b)). The simulated temperature magnitudes do not differ significantly among models but all overestimate the temperature. 16MME overestimates the annual mean temperature by 0.5–1.5 °C. The simulations of both precipitation and temperature are biased, and the mechanism to improve this error remains a challenge.
Spatial distribution of observed (a) and 16MME (b) monthly mean precipitation in China and percentage bias (c, d) between them.
Spatial distribution of observed (a) and 16MME (b) monthly mean precipitation in China and percentage bias (c, d) between them.
Climate simulation DISO score for NEX-GDDP-CMIP6
Average CC, MAE, RMSE and DISO of 16 GCMs in China, including precipitation and temperature
Climate model . | Precipitation . | Temperature . | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CC . | MAE . | RMSE . | DISO . | CC . | MAE . | RMSE . | DISO . | |
ACCESS-CM2 | 0.643 | 0.850 | 1.282 | 1.630 | 0.978 | 2.057 | 2.552 | 3.280 |
ACCESS-ESM1-5 | 0.632 | 0.878 | 1.313 | 1.674 | 0.978 | 2.053 | 2.542 | 3.269 |
BCC-CSM2-MR | 0.633 | 0.866 | 1.292 | 1.652 | 0.976 | 2.114 | 2.631 | 3.377 |
CESM2 | 0.631 | 0.885 | 1.326 | 1.688 | 0.977 | 2.027 | 2.532 | 3.246 |
CESM2-WACCM | 0.618 | 0.893 | 1.339 | 1.709 | 0.977 | 2.033 | 2.531 | 3.248 |
CMCC-CM2-SR5 | 0.627 | 0.875 | 1.304 | 1.669 | 0.970 | 2.243 | 2.667 | 3.564 |
CMCC-ESM2 | 0.633 | 0.875 | 1.307 | 1.668 | 0.976 | 2.129 | 2.652 | 3.403 |
CNRM-CM6-1 | 0.615 | 0.889 | 1.343 | 1.710 | 0.975 | 2.115 | 2.644 | 3.387 |
IITM-ESM | 0.617 | 0.872 | 1.317 | 1.682 | 0.976 | 2.061 | 2.575 | 3.300 |
MIROC6 | 0.646 | 0.864 | 1.284 | 1.638 | 0.975 | 2.119 | 2.652 | 3.397 |
MPI-ESM1-2-HR | 0.614 | 0.895 | 1.343 | 1.715 | 0.976 | 2.096 | 2.604 | 3.345 |
MPI-ESM1-2-LR | 0.623 | 0.876 | 1.312 | 1.677 | 0.977 | 2.088 | 2.579 | 3.320 |
MRI-ESM2-0 | 0.624 | 0.885 | 1.336 | 1.698 | 0.977 | 2.076 | 2.568 | 3.304 |
NorESM2-LM | 0.630 | 0.882 | 1.326 | 1.687 | 0.977 | 2.080 | 2.587 | 3.321 |
NorESM2-MM | 0.625 | 0.891 | 1.339 | 1.703 | 0.977 | 2.089 | 2.598 | 3.336 |
TaiESM1 | 0.625 | 0.880 | 1.315 | 1.681 | 0.971 | 2.238 | 2.666 | 3.560 |
Climate model . | Precipitation . | Temperature . | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CC . | MAE . | RMSE . | DISO . | CC . | MAE . | RMSE . | DISO . | |
ACCESS-CM2 | 0.643 | 0.850 | 1.282 | 1.630 | 0.978 | 2.057 | 2.552 | 3.280 |
ACCESS-ESM1-5 | 0.632 | 0.878 | 1.313 | 1.674 | 0.978 | 2.053 | 2.542 | 3.269 |
BCC-CSM2-MR | 0.633 | 0.866 | 1.292 | 1.652 | 0.976 | 2.114 | 2.631 | 3.377 |
CESM2 | 0.631 | 0.885 | 1.326 | 1.688 | 0.977 | 2.027 | 2.532 | 3.246 |
CESM2-WACCM | 0.618 | 0.893 | 1.339 | 1.709 | 0.977 | 2.033 | 2.531 | 3.248 |
CMCC-CM2-SR5 | 0.627 | 0.875 | 1.304 | 1.669 | 0.970 | 2.243 | 2.667 | 3.564 |
CMCC-ESM2 | 0.633 | 0.875 | 1.307 | 1.668 | 0.976 | 2.129 | 2.652 | 3.403 |
CNRM-CM6-1 | 0.615 | 0.889 | 1.343 | 1.710 | 0.975 | 2.115 | 2.644 | 3.387 |
IITM-ESM | 0.617 | 0.872 | 1.317 | 1.682 | 0.976 | 2.061 | 2.575 | 3.300 |
MIROC6 | 0.646 | 0.864 | 1.284 | 1.638 | 0.975 | 2.119 | 2.652 | 3.397 |
MPI-ESM1-2-HR | 0.614 | 0.895 | 1.343 | 1.715 | 0.976 | 2.096 | 2.604 | 3.345 |
MPI-ESM1-2-LR | 0.623 | 0.876 | 1.312 | 1.677 | 0.977 | 2.088 | 2.579 | 3.320 |
MRI-ESM2-0 | 0.624 | 0.885 | 1.336 | 1.698 | 0.977 | 2.076 | 2.568 | 3.304 |
NorESM2-LM | 0.630 | 0.882 | 1.326 | 1.687 | 0.977 | 2.080 | 2.587 | 3.321 |
NorESM2-MM | 0.625 | 0.891 | 1.339 | 1.703 | 0.977 | 2.089 | 2.598 | 3.336 |
TaiESM1 | 0.625 | 0.880 | 1.315 | 1.681 | 0.971 | 2.238 | 2.666 | 3.560 |
DISO 3D distribution and histograms for 16 GCMs precipitation in four climate classifications: (a) arid, (b) semi-arid, (c) semi-humid, and (d) humid.
DISO 3D distribution and histograms for 16 GCMs precipitation in four climate classifications: (a) arid, (b) semi-arid, (c) semi-humid, and (d) humid.
Spatial distribution of CC, MAE, RMSE and DISO for 16MME precipitation, and radar maps based on the regional average value of climate classifications.
Spatial distribution of CC, MAE, RMSE and DISO for 16MME precipitation, and radar maps based on the regional average value of climate classifications.
The best-performing models for precipitation and temperature in China were ACCESS-CM2 (DISO 1.630) and CESM2 (DISO 3.246), while 16MME outperformed them. This phenomenon was observed simultaneously among climate classifications, indicating that the best single model was inferior to the 16MME. The multi-model ensemble is effective in reducing the uncertainty inherent in models, in agreement with Yang et al. (2020). Since 16MME has the best simulation performance, it was used to calculate the drought index to evaluate the drought identification capability of NEX-GDDP-CMIP6.
NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 drought capture DISO score
Drought identification capability of CN05.1
Historical drought years identified by CN05.1 data, with gray shading representing correct detection and red shading representing a failure to detect. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/nh.2023.140.
Historical drought years identified by CN05.1 data, with gray shading representing correct detection and red shading representing a failure to detect. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/nh.2023.140.
The SPI and the SPEI of 16MME were calculated and statistical analysis with reference data was performed. The drought capture capability, fit degree and error characteristics of NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 were quantified by CC, POD, FAR and DISO. The POD and the FAR were counted with SPI/SPEI ≤ −0.5 as the drought condition.
Spatial distribution of CC, MAE, RMSE and DISO between drought indices calculated from different data sources and boxplots by climate classification.
Spatial distribution of CC, MAE, RMSE and DISO between drought indices calculated from different data sources and boxplots by climate classification.
DISO 3D distribution and histograms of 16MME drought capture capacity in four climate classifications.
DISO 3D distribution and histograms of 16MME drought capture capacity in four climate classifications.
Overall, the comprehensive performance of the SPI and the SPEI calculated by 16MME for drought identification over China is acceptable. It is suitable for grid-scale drought detection. We recommend using the SPEI for drought monitoring in AR, while in other climate classifications, it has higher DISO spatial heterogeneity and is relatively inapplicable, so the SPI is recommended in these regions. The selection of appropriate drought indices according to local conditions is beneficial for accurate drought identification, but the climate output of NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 should be used cautiously for drought monitoring in places with poor DISO performance (e.g., the Himalayas and southwestern Xinjiang).
DISCUSSION
DISO applicability analysis
Taylor diagrams based on 2D space are currently the most common method to measure climate models' performance. Hu et al. (2019) pointed out the shortcomings of Taylor diagrams and proposed the DISO. It measures the comprehensive performance of the evaluated object through a 3D perspective. However, DISO is suitable for assessing the performance of single climate elements among models, but is inapplicable among different climate elements. For example, as the precipitation time scale expands, its absolute error gradually accumulates (year > month), which in turn leads to the expansion of DISO. In contrast, the MAE and RMSE of temperature did not change significantly due to the time-scale expansion. In addition, for precipitation and temperature, the units of MAE and RMSE could not be unified.
Using CN05.1 as a reference, Hu et al. (2019) evaluated the simulation accuracy in China for datasets including GPCC V7, CRU TS 4.01, WM 4.01, ERA-20C, ERA-20CM and CERA-20C. DISO can quantify and differentiate the simulation capability of the above models in China well, indicating the good applicability of DISO in China. In addition, DISO has better evaluation capability than the Taylor diagram. Therefore, it is a more ideal choice for evaluating the performance of climate models in China. Taylor diagrams have been widely used in climate model assessment studies around the world. DISO, also a mathematical statistical model, is an improvement on the Taylor diagram, and therefore, we believe that DISO is suitable for evaluating the simulation capability of climate models around the world. It should be noted, however, that DISO has not yet been applied elsewhere in the world. In a follow-up study, we hope to demonstrate the widespread applicability of DISO.
Zhou et al. (2021) pointed out that DISO applies to big data assessment in the natural and social sciences, and this paper extends its application to drought capture capability assessment. Unlike the first assessment objective, the drought capture capacity is comparable among drought indices. On the one hand, the SPI and the SPEI are standardized drought indices, roughly ranging from −4 to 4. They have the same classification criteria for drought severity (thresholds −0.5, −1, −1.5 and −2 for mild, moderate, severe and extreme drought, respectively). On the other hand, the drought capture capacity framework consists of dimensionless indices (CC ranges from −1 to 1, FAR and POD are both 0 to 1), which are different from MAE and RMSE. In summary, the difference in drought capture capacity between drought indices can be measured by constructing a suitable DISO framework.
Attribution analysis of drought capture capacity
The SPI and the SPEI calculated based on the 16MME have significant spatial heterogeneity in drought capture capability. Except for AR, the drought capture utility of SPI performed well in most regions, which may be related to the scarcity of meteorological observation stations and the poor accuracy of model simulation in precipitation among the AR region. In addition, 16MME underestimates precipitation over China (Figure 3(a)) and the SPI based on it misestimates drought conditions, leading to drought capture capacity variability among climate classifications. The SPEI generally performs inferior to the SPI over China but possesses a strong drought capture ability in AR. 16MME overestimates temperature, which leads to a significant increase in potential evapotranspiration. The SPEI calculation is based on the difference between accumulated precipitation and potential evapotranspiration, which is scaled up in the 16MME simulation. As can be seen in Figure 6, the FAR performs poorly over China except in AR (Figure 6(d)), which indicates that the 16MME overestimates the drought conditions and largely misreports drought conditions that do not exist. In conclusion, the overall drought monitoring capability of NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 over China is acceptable, but the applicable drought index needs to be selected according to the climate classification.
Uncertainties and limitations
The main uncertainty in this study comes from the observations and the multi-model ensemble process. The spatiotemporal range and resolution of CN05.1 fit well with the NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 product, which is the main reason for choosing it as the reference dataset. Although CN05.1 has been used in many studies (Xin et al. 2020), it inevitably has some systematic biases. The higher resolution will introduce greater uncertainty in the interpolation process on the one hand, and on the other, the scarcity of observatories at high altitudes and AR seriously affects the data quality. In future studies, the introduction of multi-source data is considered to comprehensively evaluate the performance of models. We construct the 16MME by weighted averaging, which may lead to homogenization of model performance and does not reflect the ability of the models to simulate climate extremes. In future studies, more reliable methods such as variable weight ensemble averaging and Bayesian model averaging are considered to be introduced.
There are three main categories of systematic biases inherent in climate models: (1) the internal physical simulation process of the climate model and its response to external forcing; (2) the mismatch between the internal phase changes of the climate model and the observations; and (3) the inability to reveal the influence of the grid-scale topography on the models. The statistical downscaling approach of NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 ignores the effects of land use and topography, and the increased resolution fails to reduce the bias between models and observations. It is recommended that dynamic downscaling methods that consider physical mechanisms be introduced in future studies to reduce the models' inherent uncertainty. This study examined the two most commonly used drought indices and many other potentially excellent-performing drought indices were not considered. Therefore, it is recommended that future studies include additional drought indices to provide a more comprehensive view on the performance of NEX-GDDP-CMIP6.
CONCLUSION
This paper evaluates the simulated performance and drought capture capability of NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 over China based on the DISO and draws the following conclusions.
- (1)
None of the climate models capture the fluctuations of China's annual average precipitation well, but they can effectively reproduce the strong warming trend in recent decades. The 16MME underestimates China's annual average precipitation with 40 mm and overestimates the temperature by 0.5–1.5 °C. The 16MME can reproduce the spatial distribution pattern of China's monthly average precipitation and temperature very well, but inevitably there are large errors in areas with high altitudes or few stations (central Xinjiang and the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau).
- (2)
The ability of the climate models to capture monthly precipitation among climate classifications varies widely. The best model for simulating precipitation over China is ACCESS-CM2 (DISO1.630) and the worst is MPI-ESM1-2-HR (DISO1.715). The performance of the temperature simulations did not differ significantly among climate classifications, with the top- and bottom-ranked models being CESM2 (DISO 3.246) and CMCC-CM2-SR5 (DISO 3.564).
- (3)
16MME can simulate precipitation trends in HD and SHD relatively better, while climatological trends in temperature are well reproduced over China. The MAE and RMSE of precipitation decrease from the southeast coast to the northwest, while the absolute error of temperature increases with elevation and latitude. The best-performing model for precipitation and temperature over China is inferior to the 16MME, which indicates that multi-model ensembles improve the performance of models effectively.
- (4)
The CC of the SPI performed poorly in AR and possesses the acceptable performance over other climate classifications, while the SPEI presents a strong correlation only in AR. The SPI based on 16MME is more effective in monitoring drought in HD, SHD and SAR, while the SPEI is recommended for AR areas. Our results emphasize the importance of selecting appropriate drought indices when conducting climate change studies.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the General Project of National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 52079036 and U2243203). The authors are grateful to the Editor and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
All relevant data are available from an online repository or repositories (https://www.nccs.nasa.gov/services/data-collections/land-based-products/nex-gddp-cmip6).
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare there is no conflict.