Search for: All records

Statistical processing of numerical model output has been a part of both weather forecasting and climate applications for decades. Statistical techniques are used to correct systematic biases in atmospheric model outputs and to represent local effects that are unresolved by the model, referred to as downscaling. Many downscaling techniques have been developed, and it has been difficult to systematically explore the implications of the individual decisions made in the development of downscaling methods. Here we describe a unified framework that enables the user to evaluate multiple decisions made in the methods used to statistically postprocess output from weather and climate models. The Ensemble Generalized Analog Regression Downscaling (En-GARD) method enables the user to select any number of input variables, predictors, mathematical transformations, and combinations for use in parametric or nonparametric downscaling approaches. En-GARD enables explicitly predicting both the probability of event occurrence and the event magnitude. Outputs from En-GARD include errors in model fit, enabling the production of an ensemble of projections through sampling of the probability distributions of each climate variable. We apply En-GARD to regional climate model simulations to evaluate the relative importance of different downscaling method choices on simulations of the current and future climate. We show that choice of predictor variables is the most important decision affecting downscaled future climate outputs, while having little impact on the fidelity of downscaled outcomes for current climate. We also show that weak statistical relationships prevent such approaches from predicting large changes in extreme events on a daily time scale.

Forests are currently a substantial carbon sink globally. Many climate change mitigation strategies leverage forest preservation and expansion, but rely on forests storing carbon for decades to centuries. Yet climate‐driven disturbances pose critical risks to the long‐term stability of forest carbon. We quantify the climate drivers that influence wildfire and climate stress‐driven tree mortality, including a separate insect‐driven tree mortality, for the contiguous United States for current (1984–2018) and project these future disturbance risks over the 21st century. We find that current risks are widespread and projected to increase across different emissions scenarios by a factor of >4 for fire and >1.3 for climate‐stress mortality. These forest disturbance risks highlight pervasive climate‐sensitive disturbance impacts on US forests and raise questions about the risk management approach taken by forest carbon offset policies. Our results provide US‐wide risk maps of key climate‐sensitive disturbances for improving carbon cycle modeling, conservation and climate policy.

Carbon offsets are widely used by individuals, corporations, and governments to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions on the assumption that offsets reflect equivalent climate benefits achieved elsewhere. These climate‐equivalence claims depend on offsets providing real and additional climate benefits beyond what would have happened, counterfactually, without the offsets project. Here, we evaluate the design of California's prominent forest carbon offsets program and demonstrate that its climate‐equivalence claims fall far short on the basis of directly observable evidence. By design, California's program awards large volumes of offset credits to forest projects with carbon stocks that exceed regional averages. This paradigm allows for adverse selection, which could occur if project developers preferentially select forests that are ecologically distinct from unrepresentative regional averages. By digitizing and analyzing comprehensive offset project records alongside detailed forest inventory data, we provide direct evidence that comparing projects against coarse regional carbon averages has led to systematic over‐crediting of 30.0 million tCO₂e (90% CI: 20.5–38.6 million tCO₂e) or 29.4% of the credits we analyzed (90% CI: 20.1%–37.8%). These excess credits are worth an estimated $410 million (90% CI: $280–$528 million) at recent market prices. Rather than improve forest management to store additional carbon, California's forest offsets program creates incentives to generate offset credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.