Extreme precipitation events, which have intensified with global warming, will have a serious influence on society. Based on the latest generation of CMIP6 climate models and high-resolution grid observation data, the quantile mapping method and Taylor diagrams were used to correct and evaluate the simulation values. Six extreme precipitation indices for the near (2021–2040), middle (2051–2070), and far (2081–2100) periods of the 21st century were analyzed under shared socioeconomic pathway scenarios (SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5). The results show that most of the extreme precipitation indices will increase over the Minjiang River Basin in the future, and both extreme precipitation and persistent drought will increase at the same time, which is more likely to cause extreme drought and flood disasters. For seasonal variation, the total amount and intensity of extreme precipitation will increase fastest in autumn, while the frequency of extreme precipitation will increase most in summer. Multimodel median changes show a decrease in the return period of RX1day (the maximum 1-day precipitation). By the end of the 21st century, under SSP5-8.5, the extreme events expected once every 100 years under the current climate are expected to occur approximately every 18.6 years.

  • Quantile mapping and Taylor diagram were used to correct and evaluate the CMIP6 models.

  • The future changes of Minjiang River Basin extreme precipitation under SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios were revealed by using six ETCCDI indices.

  • Future seasonal variations in extreme precipitation were discussed.

  • GEV distribution indicates that the frequency of precipitation extremes will increase in the future.

Graphical Abstract

Graphical Abstract
Graphical Abstract

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), the global surface temperature in 2011–2020 was 1.09 °C (0.95–1.20 °C) higher than that in 1850–1900 (IPCC 2021). Global warming is believed to be linked to the recent increase in extreme precipitation events due to increased atmospheric water vapor and warmer air (Ziegler et al. 2003; Christensen & Christensen 2004). With the continuous emission of greenhouse gases, the intensity and frequency of extreme precipitation events have increased, and this trend is very likely to continue in the future (Easterling et al. 2000; Allen & Ingram 2002; Meehl et al. 2005). It should be noted that precipitation extremes have posed ever-intensifying threats to natural ecosystems (Peñuelas et al. 2017), water resources (Giuliani et al. 2016), human life (Rosenberg et al. 2010), agricultural production (He et al. 2018), hydroelectric power generation (Curtis et al. 2017), transportation, and urbanization (Rosenzweig et al. 2001). Therefore, the mitigation and adaptation of climate change, particularly extreme climate events, have received increasing attention from governmental agencies, scientific communities, and the general public (Zhai et al. 2005; Alexander et al. 2006; Donat et al. 2016).

Located in the East Asian monsoon region, China is characterized by a climate with large natural variability, and the region is vulnerable to climate extremes due to its relatively low adaptive capacity, high population density and mobility (Qin 2012). Extreme precipitation events have been the main cause of natural disasters in China since 1990, with an average annual economic loss of 139 billion Yuan and 984 deaths per year (He et al. 2018). In recent years, several scholars have discussed the changes in extreme precipitation events within the year or the season on a nationwide scale (Fu et al. 2013; Jiang et al. 2015; Chi et al. 2016; Li et al. 2018). In river basins, Su et al. (2008) showed that extreme precipitation in the Yangtze River Basin has increased significantly in recent decades, causing severe flooding. Fischer et al. (2011) found that rainfall intensity increased along the coastline and in the far west of the Zhujiang River Basin from 1961 to 2007. Lv et al. (2018) also found that the warming and drying climate is one key reason for the significant decrease in runoff in the Yellow River Basin. However, most research has been carried out at large spatial scales, mostly on the scale of large river basins, and there are few assessments of small and medium-sized watersheds in southeast China. The Minjiang River Basin (MRB) is located in the subtropical climate zone along the southeast coast of China, with frequent droughts and floods. The spatial and temporal distribution of precipitation over the MRB is affected by monsoons, ocean currents, tropical cyclones, and other factors, making it a highly sensitive area to climate change. Although the MRB has a small area of only 60,992 km2, it has abundant precipitation and an average annual runoff of 1,980 m3s−1, ranking 7th in China. Due to the large intraannual and interannual variability of precipitation in this region, the water cycle is further accelerated due to climate warming, and the spatial and temporal distribution of precipitation may become more uneven in the future. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive study on the change characteristics of MRB extreme precipitation events.

Global climate models (GCMs) are the main tools used by the scientific community to reproduce the current climate and project future changes in extreme precipitation events (IPCC 2007; Li et al. 2015). Currently, the underway CMIP6 consists of the largest number of participating models, the most complete scientific experiments designed, and the largest simulation data of the last few decades, which will support global climate research in the next 5–10 years (Eyring et al. 2016; Xin et al. 2020). CMIP6 developed a set of shared socioeconomic pathway scenarios (SSPs), which included future social and economic changes such as population, economic development, ecosystem, resources, institutions, and social factors (Chen et al. 2020). It also includes future mitigation, adaptation, and response efforts to climate change. Data from CMIP6 are still being released, but relevant research works have been carried out extensively (Akinsanola et al. 2020; Li et al. 2020; Fu et al. 2021). Due to the difference in the spatial and temporal distribution of extreme precipitation (Jiang et al. 2020; Zhu et al. 2020), the results of future projections for different river basins may be very different, so it is necessary to use the CMIP6 model specifically to discuss the future prediction of MRB. The research results will be helpful to understand the climate change and water resource distribution in this region and have important reference significance for ecological resource protection, flood and drought disaster management, etc.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the study area and its climatic characteristics. Section 3 describes the data, models, and methods. Section 4 introduces the bias correction and future prediction results of CMIP6 models. Finally, conclusions and some further discussions are provided in Section 5.

The MRB is located on the southeast coast of China, occupying the region between 25°23′ N to 28°16′ N and 116°23′ E to 119°35′ E (Figure 1). It is the mother river of Fujian Province, fan-shaped, where over 80% of the mountain area. The terrain is high in the west and low in the east, and the average slope of the Minjiang River is 0.5‰. Therefore, it is rich in hydropower resources and has built the largest hydropower station (Shuikou Hydropower Station, marked by lightning in Figure 1) in East China. MRB belongs to the subtropical oceanic monsoon climate zone, with an annual average temperature of 16–20 °C and an annual average precipitation of 1,400–2,400 mm. The rainfall is mainly in the flood season (April–September), accounting for approximately 70–80% of the annual precipitation (Yin et al. 2010). The upper part of Yanping (marked by a pentagram in Figure 1) is the upper reaches of the MRB, including three main tributaries, with a total area of 41,922 km2 in the upper reaches, accounting for 69% of the whole basin. The river basin between Yanping and Shuikou Hydropower Station is the middle stream of the Minjiang River, the length of which is 97 km, the ratio drop is more than 0.5‰, and it is the longest river course deep canyon in Fujian Province. The lower reaches of the Minjiang River are approximately 113.7 km long. The width of the riverbed generally ranges from 400 to 2,000 m, with a low gradient of less than 0.1‰ and a slow flow rate. The MRB has a large population, mostly distributed in the mountain valley, so extreme precipitation events cause great security risks to people's production and life (Rashid et al. 2021).
Figure 1

The Minjiang River Basin (MRB) on the southeast coast of China.

Figure 1

The Minjiang River Basin (MRB) on the southeast coast of China.

Close modal

Data

Observation data

The observed data in this paper are CN05.1 daily precipitation grid data provided by The National Meteorological Information Center from 1971 to 2010, with a spatial resolution of 0.25° × 0.25°. CN05.1 is a set of high-resolution grid data set established through quality control and interpolation based on the observation data of more than 2,400 Chinese surface meteorological stations, which has been widely used in climate change research (Dong et al. 2015; Zhu et al. 2020).

CMIP6 models

In this paper, daily precipitation data from GCMs were used to assess the impact of climate change in the MRB under historical and future scenarios. The GCMs outputs from CMIP6 were obtained from the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) via https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/search/cmip6/. According to the results of Zhu et al. (2021), six CMIP6 models with good precipitation simulation in China were selected, and SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios were used for future prediction. Table 1 gives a detailed description of these models, including the model number, model acronym, affiliated institution, and horizontal resolution. SSP2-4.5 is the updated scenario of RCP4.5 in CMIP5, representing the combination of moderate social vulnerability and moderate radiative forcing. SSP5-8.5, updated from the RCP8.5 scenario, is the only shared socioeconomic path that can achieve an anthropogenic radiative forcing of 8.5 W m−2 by 2100 (Eyring et al. 2016). Only the first realization, first initialization, and the first physics (r1i1p1f1) for each model were chosen, although all models provide certain ensemble members. The research period of the 21st century is divided into the near future (2021–2040), mid future (2051–2070), and far future (2081–2100). The historical reference period is 1991–2010, when extreme events increased significantly. As the multimodel ensemble (MME) can reduce the error of a single model (Sillmann et al. 2013), the MME method is employed in this work. Considering the different resolutions of the observed data and model, all model data were uniformly bilinear interpolated to the same latitude and longitude grid with the same resolution of observed data (0.25° × 0.25°) to facilitate the ensemble averaging of all models (Mishra et al. 2020).

Table 1

List of CMIP6 models used in this study

Model numberModel AcronymInstitute/CountryHorizon resolution (lon × lat)Reference
BCC-CSM2-MR Beijing Climate Center, China Meteorological Administration (BCC)/China 1.125° × 1.125° Wu et al. (2019)  
EC-Earth3-Veg EC-EARTH consortium 0.7° × 0.7° Döscher et al. (2022)  
GFDL-ESM4 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL)/USA 1.0° × 1.25° Dunne et al. (2020)  
IPSL-CM6A-LR L'Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace (IPSL)/France 1.26° × 2.5° Boucher et al. (2020)  
MRI-ESM2-0 Meteorological Research Institute (MRI)/Japan 1.125° × 1.125° Yukimoto et al. (2019)  
NorESM2-MM Norwegian Climate Centre (NCC)/Norway 0.94° × 1.25° Seland et al. (2020)  
Model numberModel AcronymInstitute/CountryHorizon resolution (lon × lat)Reference
BCC-CSM2-MR Beijing Climate Center, China Meteorological Administration (BCC)/China 1.125° × 1.125° Wu et al. (2019)  
EC-Earth3-Veg EC-EARTH consortium 0.7° × 0.7° Döscher et al. (2022)  
GFDL-ESM4 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL)/USA 1.0° × 1.25° Dunne et al. (2020)  
IPSL-CM6A-LR L'Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace (IPSL)/France 1.26° × 2.5° Boucher et al. (2020)  
MRI-ESM2-0 Meteorological Research Institute (MRI)/Japan 1.125° × 1.125° Yukimoto et al. (2019)  
NorESM2-MM Norwegian Climate Centre (NCC)/Norway 0.94° × 1.25° Seland et al. (2020)  

Extreme precipitation event indices

Due to the limitation of global climate long-series data and the lack of a unified definition of extreme climate event indicators in various countries, the research and development of extreme climate events is hindered to some extent (Alexander et al. 2006). To change this situation, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) established the Expert Group on Climate Change Detection and Indicators (ETCCDI, http://etccdi.pacific.climate.org/indices.shtml) and proposed 27 extreme climate indices for quantifying extreme temperature and precipitation events, which have been widely used in global extreme weather and climate research (Yin & Sun 2018). This study adopted the extreme climate index promoted by ETCCDI and selected six extreme precipitation indices, as shown in Table 2. These were total precipitation on wet days (Prcptot), consecutive dry days (CDD), heavy precipitation days (R10mm), very heavy precipitation days (R20mm), maximum 1-day precipitation (RX1day), and simple precipitation intensity index (SDII).

Table 2

Extreme precipitation event indices considered in this study

Indicator nameAbbreviationDefinitionsUnits
Total precipitation Prcptot Total precipitation in wet days with precipitation ≥ 1 mm mm 
Consecutive dry days CDD Maximum number of consecutive days with precipitation <1 mm 
Heavy precipitation days R10mm Days with precipitation ≥ 10 mm 
Very heavy precipitation days R20mm Days with precipitation ≥ 20 mm 
Maximum 1-day precipitation RX1day The maximum 1-day value for period mm 
Simple precipitation intensity index SDII Total wet days precipitation divided by the number of wet days mm d−1 
Indicator nameAbbreviationDefinitionsUnits
Total precipitation Prcptot Total precipitation in wet days with precipitation ≥ 1 mm mm 
Consecutive dry days CDD Maximum number of consecutive days with precipitation <1 mm 
Heavy precipitation days R10mm Days with precipitation ≥ 10 mm 
Very heavy precipitation days R20mm Days with precipitation ≥ 20 mm 
Maximum 1-day precipitation RX1day The maximum 1-day value for period mm 
Simple precipitation intensity index SDII Total wet days precipitation divided by the number of wet days mm d−1 

Methods

Bias correction

The bias correction method is an important technology for reducing simulation biases (Feddersen et al. 1999). The quantile mapping method (QM), a probability distribution-based correction method, is used to correct the deviation of CMIP6 models in this paper. Previous studies have shown that this correction method can effectively reduce the deviation of model simulation, especially for the tail of the probability density distribution (Cannon et al. 2015; Tang et al. 2022).

The brief steps of this method are as follows: The relation of the cumulative distribution function (CDF) between the observation and simulation was first constructed:
formula
(1)
A transfer function of CDF between the model and observed precipitation can be obtained:
formula
(2)

This transfer function will remain valid in the future, and the bias-corrected simulation can be calculated in the future period. Here, 1971–1990 is selected as the original training period, and the historical reference period (1991–2010) is corrected as the test period. Then, the modeling is applied to the daily precipitation data of the next three periods (2021–2040, 2051–2070, and 2081–2100).

Taylor diagram

To evaluate the overall skill in reproducing the spatial pattern of the present-day climate indices, the Taylor Diagram is used (Taylor 2001) in this paper. It statistically summarizes how well the historical model outputs match the observed data by means of their corresponding spatial correlation coefficient (CC), centered root mean square error (RMSE), and the ratio of spatial standard deviation (RSD). There is a mathematical transformation relationship among the three variables, so the difference in the simulation ability of different models can be compared more intuitively by putting them on the same graph. A perfect simulation would be one with an RMSE equal to 0 and both the CC and RSD close to 1 (Li et al. 2015).

Generalized extreme value distribution

Return periods such as the ‘T-year (100-year) event’ describe an event that has, on average, a 1-in-T (1% for the 100-year event) chance of occurring or being exceeded in any given year at a given location (Slater et al. 2021). It is commonly used for a wide range of applications in engineering planning, for instance, in the decision of hydrologic design, water management structure, dams, and bridges (Li et al. 2018). To estimate the return value, the annual maximum (AM) value method is used to select sample sequences from daily data at every grid point to be fitted by the generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution. According to classical extreme value theory, the approximate distribution of the maximum value in each period should belong to one of the three probability distributions of Gumbel, Frechet, and Weibull, while the GEV distribution is a unified description of these three forms, which can avoid the disadvantage of adopting a single distribution. GEV distribution was found to be suitable as a fit to the tails of the distribution for precipitation (Wang et al. 2013).

The CDF, G(z), is given by Coles (2001):
formula
(3)
where μ, σ, and ξ represent the position parameter, scale parameter, and shape parameter, respectively. These three parameters are estimated by the L-distance method. Compared with other methods for parameter estimation within a small sample range, this method is more efficient and produces less uncertainty (Hosking & Wallis 1997). Having estimated the parameters, return value, Zp, corresponding to the return period T = 1/p, can be determined after inverting the GEV CDF.
formula
(4)
where p is an exceedance probability. Two different return period events (20 and 100 years) of annual maximum 1-day precipitation for the reference period (1991–2010) and the 20-year slices in the future with two SSP scenarios for CMIP6 models are derived from the fitted GEV.

Model evaluation and biases correction

Supplementary Figure S1 and Figure 2, respectively, the bias in the simulation of extreme precipitation event indices from the observations before and after bias correction during the reference period. It can be seen that, in addition to the CDD index, the extreme precipitation index simulated by the model is less in most areas of the MRB, which indicates that the model simulation has a ‘dry bias’ compared with the observation. This phenomenon is more obvious in the upper and middle reaches of Minjiang River, and all models show consistent bias (Supplementary Table S1). After QM correction, this ‘dry bias’ is significantly improved, and the model and observation errors are usually reduced to less than 10%.
Figure 2

Bias in the simulation of extreme precipitation event indices from the observations after bias correction during the reference period: (a) Prcptot, (b) R10mm, (c) R20mm, (d) Rx1day, (e) SDII, and (f) CDD. The ‘ + ’ indicates that all the simulations simulated the negative/positive bias.

Figure 2

Bias in the simulation of extreme precipitation event indices from the observations after bias correction during the reference period: (a) Prcptot, (b) R10mm, (c) R20mm, (d) Rx1day, (e) SDII, and (f) CDD. The ‘ + ’ indicates that all the simulations simulated the negative/positive bias.

Close modal
Figure 3 shows the Taylor diagram of the extreme precipitation index simulated by the CMIP6 global climate model in the MRB during the historical reference period (1991–2010) relative to the observations. The hollow dots represent the original simulation results without bias correction (Figure 3(a)), and the solid dots represent the model simulation results after bias correction by the QM method (Figure 3(b)). The closer the distance between the dot and the observation data (REF point) is, the closer the simulation result is to the observation. As seen from the figure, the revised solid dot is closer to the REF point, and the correction effect is significant. The CC of most extreme precipitation indices increased from 0–0.6 to 0.5–0.9, the RMSE ranged from 0 to 0.5, and the RSD ranged from 0.7 to 1.5. Prcptot and SDII have the best correction effect on the spatial CC of the extreme precipitation index after the multimodel average. Prcptot increased from 0.17 to 0.84. The SDII was −0.22 before revision, with climate drift in some models (Zhou & Yu 2006), which was raised to 0.79 after revision. The RSD between the model and the observation was best for RX1day and SDII. In general, during the historical reference period, after QM bias correction, the simulations of the extreme precipitation index models are closer to the observations.
Figure 3

Taylor diagrams showing the performance of models in simulating climatological fields over Fujian province in extreme temperature events for six indices: (a) Hollow dots indicate no bias correction, while solid dots indicate bias correction, (b) (numbers 1–6 correspond to the model number in Table 1).

Figure 3

Taylor diagrams showing the performance of models in simulating climatological fields over Fujian province in extreme temperature events for six indices: (a) Hollow dots indicate no bias correction, while solid dots indicate bias correction, (b) (numbers 1–6 correspond to the model number in Table 1).

Close modal

Spatial variation in precipitation extremes

Prcptot and CDD

Figure 4 shows the variation trend of annual Prcptot relative to the reference period under different scenarios in the MRB in the 21st century. Prcptot in the MRB will increase in all periods in the future, especially in the far future, and the statistical significance of precipitation differences in most regions exceeds the 95% confidence level. Under SSP2-4.5, the MRB will increase by 2–8% in the near and middle future, while it will increase by 8–15%. Under the SSP5-8.5 scenario, the changes in the near and middle future are similar to those under the SSP2-4.5 scenario, but they increase significantly by 10–20% in the far future, especially in the areas of the upper and lower reaches of the Minjiang River. For CDD (Figure 5), the values in the middle and lower reaches of the Minjiang River will decrease in the near future under the SSP5-8.5 scenario but increase under the other scenarios. The CDD will generally increase by 1–5%, but the spatial distribution is uneven. Drought in the upper and middle reaches of the Minjiang River will be more serious than that in the lower reaches in the future. Based on the analysis of Figures 4 and 5, it can be seen that extreme precipitation and persistent drought increased simultaneously in most cases in the MBR in the 21st century, and extreme climate and instability increased, which is more likely to trigger extreme drought and flood events. A general drying signal in Prcptot and CDD is found but accompanied by a wetting signal of extreme precipitation events, which is very close to the results of Zhu et al. (2020) in South China.
Figure 4

Spatial distribution of variation of annual Prcptot in the near future (the left column), mid future (the middle column), and far future (the right column) relative to historical reference period in MRB under two scenarios (Black solid dots indicate the statistical significance of precipitation difference that exceeds the 95% confidence level).

Figure 4

Spatial distribution of variation of annual Prcptot in the near future (the left column), mid future (the middle column), and far future (the right column) relative to historical reference period in MRB under two scenarios (Black solid dots indicate the statistical significance of precipitation difference that exceeds the 95% confidence level).

Close modal
Figure 5

Same as Figure 4, but for CDD.

Figure 5

Same as Figure 4, but for CDD.

Close modal

R10mm and R20mm

A previous study (Xu et al. 2019) showed that the southeastern and southern China regions tend to be more sensitive to the increase in the frequency of extreme precipitation (e.g., R10mm and R20mm). For the MRB, Figures 6 and 7 show the future changes in R10mm and R20mm under different scenarios, respectively. For R10mm, under both scenarios, some areas do not increase in the near and middle future, especially in the downstream estuary, while most of the basin increases in the far future by 1–4 days. In contrast, R20mm will change more complexly in the 21st century, only showing a significant increasing trend in the far future of SSP5-8.5, with the highest increase in the northwestern alpine region. Because the frequency of MRB extreme precipitation (R10mm and R20mm) will have complex spatial changes in different periods, further analysis of seasonal changes is needed, and relevant results are presented in Figure 8.
Figure 6

Same as Figure 4, but for R10mm.

Figure 6

Same as Figure 4, but for R10mm.

Close modal
Figure 7

Same as Figure 4, but for R20mm.

Figure 7

Same as Figure 4, but for R20mm.

Close modal
Figure 8

Spatial distribution of variation of annual Prcptot in the near future (blue), mid future (green), and far future (red) relative to historical reference period in MRB under SSP5-8.5 scenario: (a) Prcptot, (b) CDD, (c) R10mm, (d) R20mm, (e) Rx1day, and (f) SDII. Bars represent the multimodel mean, the upper and lower limits represent the maximum and minimum values of multiple models. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2022.145.

Figure 8

Spatial distribution of variation of annual Prcptot in the near future (blue), mid future (green), and far future (red) relative to historical reference period in MRB under SSP5-8.5 scenario: (a) Prcptot, (b) CDD, (c) R10mm, (d) R20mm, (e) Rx1day, and (f) SDII. Bars represent the multimodel mean, the upper and lower limits represent the maximum and minimum values of multiple models. Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2022.145.

Close modal

Rx1day and SDII

Rx1day (Figure 9) and SDII (Figure 10), which represent the precipitation intensity, will increase in different stages in the future, and the lower reaches of the MRB generally exceed the middle and upper reaches. Rx1day has a large increase range, with an increase of 5–20% in the near and middle future and 10–60% in the far future under the two scenarios. Rx1day is an absolute index, which is related to the risk of flooding at local small scales and widespread flood disasters (Xu et al. 2022) and is worth further study from the return period (Section 4.4). The SDII will show little change in the next three periods, with an increase of no more than 15% under the SSP2-4.5 scenario. However, under the SSP5-8.5 scenario, the SDII will increase significantly by 10–25% in the far future.
Figure 9

Same as Figure 3, but for Rx1day.

Figure 9

Same as Figure 3, but for Rx1day.

Close modal
Figure 10

Same as Figure 3, but for SDII.

Figure 10

Same as Figure 3, but for SDII.

Close modal

Season projection

In this section, the ensemble mean of the projected changes under the SSP5-8.5 scenario are discussed due to the relevance of strong seasonality over this region. It defines spring as March to May, summer as June to August, autumn as September to November, and winter as December to February. Prcptot will increase in all seasons in the future, with the most significant increase in autumn (approximately 70–140%). The CDD will increase significantly in autumn and winter but decrease slightly in summer. This indicates that the variation between seasons increases, especially in the dry season, with the increase in Prcptot, drought increases greatly at the same time, and the possibility of extreme drought and flood events increases greatly. In the future, R10mm and R20mm days will increase in most seasons, with the largest increase in summer, indicating an increase in the frequency of extreme precipitation in summer. At the same time, it can also be seen that in near future spring and middle future autumn, R10mm and R20mm will decrease, suggesting that seasonal differences exist in a specific period of time. In the 21st century, precipitation intensity will increase significantly in all seasons, with the largest increase in autumn. Rx1day will increase by an average of 10–90% in each season, while SDII will increase by approximately 5–40%. Overall, these changes suggest that the total amount and intensity of extreme precipitation will increase fastest in autumn, while the frequency of extreme precipitation will increase most in summer. The MRB may experience a longer dry spell duration in the future, but extreme precipitation may be more frequent and more intensified when it occurs. Similarly, Supari et al. (2020) found that it will also occur in other parts of Asia, suggesting that extreme drought-flood events require wider attention in the future.

Changes in the return period

Figure 11 shows the pattern of the future return period for the current 20-year (a) and 100-year (b) events under different SSP scenarios. The frequency of extreme events continues to increase with global warming. From Figure 11(b), the events that are expected to occur every 20 years in the current climate are expected to occur approximately every 11–12 years (near future), 7–10 years (middle future), and 4–5 years (far future) under the two warming scenarios. The distribution of the precipitation events within a 100-year return period is similar to that of the 20-year return period, with only some differences in magnitude. Figure 11(b) suggests that the extreme events expected to occur once every 100 years under the current climate are expected to occur approximately every 50–55 years (near future), 36–42 years (middle future), and 18–24 years (far future). In particular, it is expected to occur approximately every 18.6 years on average in the far future under the SSP5-8.5 scenario. That is, the rarest extreme events (longest return period) exhibit the largest increase in risk, especially under high warming levels (Kharin et al. 2018).
Figure 11

The return period of Rx1day in different periods in the 21st century under 20-years (a), 100-years (b) return period in history under SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios. The upper and lower limits of the box indicate the 75th and 25th percentile values, respectively.

Figure 11

The return period of Rx1day in different periods in the 21st century under 20-years (a), 100-years (b) return period in history under SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios. The upper and lower limits of the box indicate the 75th and 25th percentile values, respectively.

Close modal

Using six climate models in the CMIP6 archive and ETCCDI indices, this study reveals the future changes in extreme precipitation over the MRB, as well as the return period under the SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios. The primary conclusions are as follows:

The CMIP6 climate model results are better than those of the original model after QM bias correction. On the Taylor diagram, the CC of most extreme precipitation indices increased from 0–0.6 to 0.5–0.9, the RMSE ranged from 0 to 0.5, and the RSD ranged from 0.7 to 1.5.

From the perspective of the annual average, most ETCCDI indices will grow in the future. Prcptot will increase in all periods in the future, and CDD will also increase in most cases. R10mm and R20mm have complex spatial changes at different times, and they will increase significantly during 2081–2100 under the SSP5-8.5 scenario. Rx1day and SDII, which represent precipitation intensity, will increase in the future throughout the 21st century. Overall, extreme precipitation and persistent drought will increase simultaneously over the MBR in the 21st century, and extreme climate and instability will increase, which is more likely to induce extreme drought and flood events. For seasonal variation, Prcptot will increase in all seasons in the future, with the most significant increase in autumn. The CDD will increase significantly in autumn and winter but decrease slightly in summer. R10mm and R20mm days will increase in most seasons, with the largest increase in summer. Rx1day will increase by 10–90% in each season, while SDII will increase by approximately 5–40%. These changes suggest that the MRB may experience a longer dry spell duration in the future, but extreme precipitation may be more frequent and more intensified when it occurs.

By GEV distribution analysis, the frequency of extreme events will increase in the future. The events that are expected to occur every 20 years in the current climate are expected to occur approximately every 11–12 years (near future), 7–10 years (middle future), and 4–5 years (far future). Extreme events expected to occur once every 100 years under the current climate are expected to occur approximately every 50–55 years (near future), 36–42 years (middle future), and 18–24 years (far future).

Admittedly, the CMIP6 models’ ability to simulate extreme precipitation indices is lower than their ability to simulate extreme temperature indices (Zhu et al. 2020). Compared with CMIP5, which was very persistent and widespread, the drying biases in CMIP6 in South China were significantly reduced but still existed. The system bias of GCMs and their ability to simulate precipitation extremes is closely related to the models’ ability to simulate atmospheric circulation, such as the Northwest Pacific subtropical high (NPSH) and southwesterly winds (Jiang et al. 2015). At the same time, the simulation ability of the model to the monsoon region is relatively poor, and the intermodel uncertainties of the projected precipitation extremes are still large in those regions where the East Asian summer monsoon (EASM) prevails (Xu et al. 2015). The MBR is located in the subtropical monsoon climate zone along the southeast coast of China, which is inevitably affected by model uncertainty. Future studies should also include more targeted analyses to better understand the physical processes underlying both the model biases and the changes in the regional distribution of extremes over the MRB. Moreover, the simulation bias between GCMs and observations is also attributed to the coarse resolution of GCMs. The NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 downscaling projection dataset provided by NASA is a good option (Thrasher et al. 2022). In addition, dynamic downscaling and regional climate models (RCMs) have better resolution and thus better capture extreme climate features at the regional scale (Dong et al. 2020). We will also adopt more CMIP6 models and apply different set schemes and preferred ordering to achieve a reasonable set average of the model results to reduce the uncertainty in future work.

All relevant data are available from an online repository or repositories: CN05.1: https://ccrc.iap.ac.cn/resource; CMIP6: https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/search/cmip6/.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Akinsanola
A. A.
,
Kooperman
G. J.
,
Pendergrass
A. G.
,
Hannah
W. M.
&
Reed
K. A.
2020
Seasonal representation of extreme precipitation indices over the United States in CMIP6 present-day simulations
.
Environmental Research Letters
15
(
9
),
094003
.
Alexander
L. V.
,
Zhang
X. B.
,
Peterson
T. C.
,
Caesar
J.
&
Vazquez-Aguirre
J. L.
2006
Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation
.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
111
(
D5
),
D05109
.
Boucher
O.
,
Servonnat
J.
,
Albright
A. L.
,
Aumont
O.
,
Balkanski
Y.
,
Bastrikov
V.
,
Bekki
S.
,
Bonnet
R.
,
Bony
S.
,
Bopp
L.
,
Braconnot
P.
,
Brockmann
P.
,
Cadule
P.
,
Caubel
A.
,
Cheruy
F.
,
Codron
F.
,
Cozic
A.
,
Cugnet
D.
,
D'Andrea
F.
,
Davini
P.
,
de Lavergne
C.
,
Denvil
S.
,
Deshayes
J.
,
Devilliers
M.
,
Ducharne
A.
,
Dufresne
J.-L.
,
Dupont
E.
,
Éthé
C.
,
Fairhead
L.
,
Falletti
L.
,
Flavoni
S.
,
Foujols
M.-A.
,
Gardoll
S.
,
Gastineau
G.
,
Ghattas
J.
,
Grandpeix
J.-Y.
,
Guenet
B.
,
Lionel, Guez
E.
,
Guilyardi
E.
,
Guimberteau
M.
,
Hauglustaine
D.
,
Hourdin
F.
,
Idelkadi
A.
,
Joussaume
S.
,
Kageyama
M.
,
Khodri
M.
,
Krinner
G.
,
Lebas
N.
,
Levavasseur
G.
,
Lévy
C.
,
Li
L.
,
Lott
F.
,
Lurton
T.
,
Luyssaert
S.
,
Madec
G.
,
Madeleine
J.-B.
,
Maignan
F.
,
Marchand
M.
,
Marti
O.
,
Mellul
L.
,
Meurdesoif
Y.
,
Mignot
J.
,
Musat
I.
,
Ottlé
C.
,
Peylin
P.
,
Planton
Y.
,
Polcher
J.
,
Rio
C.
,
Rochetin
N.
,
Rousset
C.
,
Sepulchre
P.
,
Sima
A.
,
Swingedouw
D.
,
Thiéblemont
R.
,
Khadre Traore
A.
,
Vancoppenolle
M.
,
Vial
J.
,
Vialard
J.
,
Viovy
N.
&
Vuichard
N.
2020
Presentation and evaluation of the IPSL-CM6A-LR climate model
.
Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
12
,
e2019MS002010
.
Chen
H.
,
Sun
J.
,
Lin
W.
&
Xu
H.
2020
Comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 models in simulating climate extremes
.
Science Bulletin
65
,
1415
1418
.
Chi
X.
,
Yin
Z.
,
Wang
X.
&
Sun
Y.
2016
Spatiotemporal variations of precipitation extremes of China during the past 50 years (1960–2009)
.
Theoretical & Applied Climatology
124
(
3–4
),
555
564
.
Christensen
O. B.
&
Christensen
J. H.
2004
Intensification of extreme European summer precipitation in a warmer climate
.
Global & Planetary Change
44
(
1/4
),
107
117
.
Coles
S. G.
2001
An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of Extreme Values
.
Springer
,
London
, p.
208
.
Curtis
S.
,
Fair
A.
,
Wistow
J.
,
Val
D. V.
&
Oven
K.
2017
Impact of extreme weather events and climate change for health and social care systems
.
Environmental Health A Global Access Science Source
16
(
1
),
128
.
Donat
M. G.
,
Lowry
A. L.
,
Alexander
L. V.
,
O'Gorman
P. A.
&
Maher
N.
2016
More extreme precipitation in the world's dry and wet regions
.
Nature Climate Change
6
(
5
),
508
513
.
Dong
S.
,
Xu
Y.
,
Zhou
B.
&
Shi
Y.
2015
Assessment of indices of temperature extremes simulated by multiple CMIP5 models over China
.
Advances in Atmospheric Sciences
32
,
1077
1091
.
Dong
G.
,
Jiang
Z.
,
Tian
Z.
,
Buonomo
E.
,
Sun
L.
&
Fan
D.
2020
Projecting changes in mean and extreme precipitation over eastern China during 2041–2060
.
Earth and Space Science
7
,
e2019EA001024
.
Döscher
R.
,
Acosta
M.
,
Alessandri
A.
,
Anthoni
P.
,
Arsouze
T.
,
Bergman
T.
,
Bernardello
R.
,
Boussetta
S.
,
Caron
L.-P.
,
Carver
G.
,
Castrillo
M.
,
Catalano
F.
,
Cvijanovic
I.
,
Davini
P.
,
Dekker
E.
,
Doblas-Reyes
F. J.
,
Docquier
D.
,
Echevarria
P.
,
Fladrich
U.
,
Fuentes-Franco
R.
,
Gröger
M. v.,
Hardenberg
J.
,
Hieronymus
J.
,
Karami
M. P.
,
Keskinen
J.-P.
,
Koenigk
T.
,
Makkonen
R.
,
Massonnet
F.
,
Ménégoz
M.
,
Miller
P. A.
,
Moreno-Chamarro
E.
,
Nieradzik
L.
,
van Noije
T.
,
Nolan
P.
,
O'Donnell
D.
,
Ollinaho
P.
,
van den Oord
G.
,
Ortega
P.
,
Prims
O. T.
,
Ramos
A.
,
Reerink
T.
,
Rousset
C.
,
Ruprich-Robert
Y.
,
Le Sager
P.
,
Schmith
T.
,
Schrödner
R.
,
Serva
F.
,
Sicardi
V.
,
Sloth Madsen
M.
,
Smith
B.
,
Tian
T.
,
Tourigny
E.
,
Uotila
P.
,
Vancoppenolle
M.
,
Wang
S.
,
Wårlind
D.
,
Willén
U.
,
Wyser
K.
,
Yang
S.
,
Yepes-Arbós
X.
&
Zhang
Q.
2022
The EC-Earth3 Earth system model for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6
.
Geoscientific Model Development
15
,
2973
3020
.
Dunne
J. P.
,
Horowitz
L. W.
,
Adcroft
A. J.
,
Ginoux
P.
,
Held
I. M.
,
John
J. G.
,
Krasting
J. P.
,
Malyshev
S.
,
Naik1
V.
,
Paulot
F.
,
Shevliakova
E.
,
Stock
C. A.
,
Zadeh
N.
,
Balaji
V.
,
Blanton
C.
,
Dunne
K. A.
,
Dupuis
C.
,
Durachta
J.
,
Dussin
R.
,
Gauthier
P. P. G.
,
Griffies
S. M.
,
Guo
H.
,
Hallberg
R. W.
,
Harrison
M.
,
He
J.
,
Hurlin
W.
,
McHugh
C.
,
Menzel
R.
,
Milly
P. C. D.
,
Nikonov
S.
,
Paynter
D. J.
,
Ploshay
J.
,
Radhakrishnan
A.
,
Rand
K.
,
Reichl
B. G.
,
Robinson
T.
,
Schwarzkopf
D. M.
,
Sentman
L. T.
,
Underwood
S.
,
Vahlenkamp
H.
,
Winton
M.
,
Wittenberg
A. T.
,
Wyman
B.
,
Zeng
Y.
&
Zhao
M.
2020
The GFDL Earth System Model version 4.1 (GFDL-ESM4.1): model description and simulation characteristics
.
Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
12
,
e2019MS002015
.
Easterling
D. R.
,
Evans
J. L.
,
Groisman
P. Y.
,
Karl
T. R.
&
Ambenje
P.
2000
Observed variability and trends in extreme climate events: a brief review
.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
81
(
3
),
417
426
.
Eyring
V.
,
Bony
S.
,
Meehl
G. A.
,
Senior
C. A.
,
Stevens
B.
,
Stouffer
R. J.
&
Taylor
K. E.
2016
Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization
.
Geoscientific Model Development
9
(
5
),
1937
1958
.
Feddersen
H.
,
Navarra
A.
&
Ward
M. N.
1999
Reduction of model systematic error by statistical correction for dynamical seasonal predictions
.
Journal of Climate
12
(
7
),
1974
1989
.
Fu
G.
,
Yu
J.
,
Yu
X.
,
Ouyang
R.
,
Zhang
Y.
,
Wang
P.
,
Liu
W.
&
Min
L.
2013
Temporal variation of extreme rainfall events in China, 1961-2009
.
Journal of Hydrology
487
(
487
),
48
59
.
Giuliani
M.
,
Li
Y.
,
Castelletti
A.
&
Gandolfi
C. A.
2016
A coupled human-natural systems analysis of irrigated agriculture under changing climate
.
Water Resources Research
52
,
6928
6947
.
He
B.
,
Huang
X.
,
Ma
M.
,
Chang
Q.
,
Tu
Y.
,
Li
Q.
,
Zhang
K.
&
Hong
Y.
2018
Analysis of flash flood disaster characteristics in China from 2011 to 2015
.
Natural Hazards
90
(
1
),
407
420
.
Hosking
J.
&
Wallis
J. R.
1997
Regional Frequency Analysis: An Approach Based on L-Moments
.
Cambridge University Press
,
New York
.
IPCC
2007
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
.
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge
.
IPCC
2021
Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution on the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental on Climate Change
.
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge
.
Jiang
Z.
,
Wei
L.
,
Xu
J.
&
Li
L.
2015
Extreme precipitation indices over China in CMIP5 models. Part I: model evaluation
.
Journal of Climate
28
(
21
),
8603
8619
.
Jiang
D.
,
Hu
D.
,
Tian
Z.
&
Lang
X.
2020
Differences between CMIP6 and CMIP5 models in simulating climate over China and the east Asian monsoon
.
Advances in Atmospheric Sciences
37
(
10
),
1102
1118
.
Kharin
V. V.
,
Flato
G. M.
,
Zhang
X.
,
Gillett
N. P.
,
Zwiers
F.
&
Anderson
K. J.
2018
Risks from climate extremes change differently from 1.5 °C to 2.0 °C depending on rarity
.
Earth's Future
6
(
5
),
704
715
.
Li
W.
,
Jiang
Z.
,
Xu
J.
&
Li
L.
2015
Extreme precipitation indices over China in CMIP5 models. Part II: probabilistic projection
.
Journal of Climate
28
(
21
),
8603
8619
.
Li
W.
,
Jiang
Z.
,
Zhang
X.
,
Li
L.
&
Sun
Y.
2018
Additional risk in extreme precipitation in China from 1.5 °C to 2.0 °C global warming levels
.
Science Bulletin
63
(
04
),
30
36
.
Meehl
G. A.
,
Arblaster
J. M.
&
Tebaldi
C.
2005
Understanding future patterns of increased precipitation intensity in climate model simulations
.
Geophysical Research Letters
32
(
18
),
109
127
.
Peñuelas
J.
,
Ciais
P.
,
Canadell
J. G.
,
Janssens
I. A.
,
Fernández-Martínez
M.
,
Carnicer
J.
,
Obersteiner
M.
,
Piao
S.
,
Vautard
R.
&
Sardans
J.
2017
Shifting from a fertilization-dominated to a warming-dominated period
.
Nature Ecology & Evolution
1
,
1438
1445
.
Qin
D. H.
2012
The Synthetic Report of Assessment of Climate and Environment Changes in China: 2012
.
Meteorological Press
,
Beijing
, p.
87
.
Rashid
H.
,
Yang
K.
,
Zeng
A.
,
Ju
S.
,
Rashid
A.
,
Guo
F.
&
Lan
S.
2021
The influence of landcover and climate change on the hydrology of the Minjiang River watershed
.
Water
13
,
3554
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13243554
.
Rosenberg
E. A.
,
Keys
P. W.
,
Booth
D. B.
,
Hartley
D.
,
Burkey
J.
,
Steinemann
A. C.
&
Lettenmaier
D. P.
2010
Precipitation extremes and the impacts of climate change on stormwater infrastructure in Washington State
.
Climatic Change
102
(
1–2
),
319
349
.
Rosenzweig
C.
,
Iglesias
A.
,
Yang
X. B.
,
Epstein
P. R.
&
Chivian
E.
2001
Climate change and extreme weather events; implications for food production, plant diseases, and pests
.
Global Change & Human Health
2
(
2
),
90
104
.
Seland
Ø.
,
Bentsen
M.
,
Olivié
D.
,
Toniazzo
T.
,
Gjermundsen
A.
,
Graff
L. S.
,
Debernard
J. B.
,
Gupta
A. K.
,
He
Y.-C.
,
Kirkevåg
A.
,
Schwinger
J.
,
Tjiputra
J.
,
Aas
K. S.
,
Bethke
I.
,
Fan
Y.
,
Griesfeller
J.
,
Grini
A.
,
Guo
C.
,
Ilicak
M.
,
Karset
I. H. H.
,
Landgren
O.
,
Liakka
J.
,
Moseid
K. O.
,
Nummelin
A.
,
Spensberger
C.
,
Tang
H.
,
Zhang
Z.
,
Heinze
C.
,
Iversen
T.
&
Schulz
M.
2020
Overview of the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM2) and key climate response of CMIP6 DECK, historical, and scenario simulations
.
Geoscientific Model Development
13
,
6165
6200
.
Sillmann
J.
,
Kharin
V. V.
,
Zwiers
F. W.
,
Zhang
X.
&
Bronaugh
D.
2013
Climate extremes indices in the CMIP5 multimodel ensemble: Part 2. Future climate projections
.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
118
(
6
),
2473
2493
.
Slater
L.
,
Villarini
G.
,
Archfield
S.
,
Faulkner
D.
,
Lamb
R.
,
Khouakhi
A.
&
Yin
J.
2021
Global changes in 20-year, 50-year, and 100-year river floods
.
Geophysical Research Letters
48
,
e2020GL091824
.
Supari Tangang
F.
,
Juneng
L.
,
Cruz
F.
,
Chung
J. X.
,
Ngai
S. T.
,
Salimun
E.
,
Mohd
M. S. F.
,
Santisirisomboon
J.
,
Singhruck
P.
,
PhanVan
T.
,
Ngo-Duc
T.
,
Narisma
G.
,
Aldrian
E.
,
Gunawan
D.
&
Sopaheluwakan
A.
2020
Multi-model projections of precipitation extremes in Southeast Asia based on CORDEX-Southeast Asia simulations
.
Environmental Research
184
,
109350
.
doi:10.1016/j.envres.2020.109350
.
Taylor
K. E.
2001
Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram
.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
106
(
D7
),
7183
7192
.
Thrasher
B.
,
Wang
W.
,
Michaelis
A.
,
Melton
F.
,
Lee
T.
&
Nemani
R.
2022
NASA global daily downscaled projections, CMIP6
.
Scientific Data
9
,
262
.
Wang
X. L.
,
Trewin
B.
,
Feng
Y.
&
Jones
D.
2013
Historical changes in Australian temperature extremes as inferred from extreme value distribution analysis
.
Geophysical Research Letters
40
(
3
),
573
578
.
Wu
T.
,
Lu
Y.
,
Fang
Y.
,
Xin
X.
&
Liu
X.
2019
The Beijing Climate Center Climate System Model (BCC-CSM): the main progress from CMIP5 to CMIP6
.
Geoscientific Model Development
12
(
4
),
1573
1600
.
Xin
X.
,
Wu
T.
,
Zhang
J.
,
Yao
J.
&
Fang
Y.
2020
Comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 simulations of precipitation in China and the East Asian summer monsoon
.
International Journal of Climatology
40
,
6423
6440
.
Xu
Y.
,
Wu
J.
,
Shi
Y.
,
Zhou
B.
,
Li
R.
&
Wu
J.
2015
Change in extreme climate events over China based on CMIP5
.
Atmospheric & Oceanic Science Letters
8
(
4
),
185
192
.
Xu
H.
,
Chen
H.
&
Wang
H.
2022
Detectable human influence on changes in precipitation extremes across China
.
Earth's Future
10
,
e2021EF002409
.
Yin
Y.
,
Gemmer
M.
,
Luo
Y.
&
Wang
Y.
2010
Tropical cyclones and heavy rainfall in Fujian Province, China
.
Quaternary International
226
(
1–2
),
122
128
.
Yukimoto
S.
,
Kawai
H.
,
Koshiro
T.
,
Oshima
N.
,
Yoshida
K.
,
Urakawa
S.
,
Tsujino
H.
,
Deushi
M.
,
Tanaka
T.
,
Hosaka
M.
,
Yabu
S.
,
Yoshimura
H.
,
Shindo
E.
,
Mizuta
R.
,
Obata
A.
,
Adachi
Y.
&
Ishii
M.
2019
The Meteorological Research Institute Earth System Model version 2.0, MRI-ESM2.0: description and basic evaluation of the physical component
.
Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan
97
,
931
965
.
Zhai
P.
,
Zhang
X.
,
Hui
W.
&
Pan
X.
2005
Trends in total precipitation and frequency of daily precipitation extremes over China
.
Journal of Climate
18
(
7
),
1096
1108
.
Zhu
H.
,
Jiang
Z.
,
Li
J.
,
Li
W.
,
Sun
C.
&
Li
L.
2020
Does CMIP6 inspire more confidence in simulating climate extremes over China?
Advances in Atmospheric Sciences
37
(
10
),
1119
1132
.
Ziegler
A. D.
,
Sheffield
J.
,
Maurer
E. P.
,
Nijssen
B.
,
Wood
E. F.
&
Lettenmaier
D. P.
2003
Detection of intensification in global and continental scale hydrological cycles: temporal scale of evaluation
.
Journal of Climate
16
(
3
),
535
547
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Supplementary data