Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Bias-adjusted climate simulations are increasingly disseminated through online platforms to support adaptation actions. However, there is no consensus on an operational framework to choose what to include in these “decision-ready” ensembles and for communicating the related uncertainty. In this paper, we use a systematic approach to assess the uncertainty related to bias-adjusted climate simulations across five dimensions: internal variability, greenhouse gases scenario, global climate model, observational reference and bias-adjustment method. We calculate the fraction of uncertainty associated with each dimension for precipitation-based, temperature-based and multivariate indicators over eastern Canada and focus particularly on three locations: Montréal, Gaspé and Kawawachikamach. The results show that the uncertainty associated with the reference dataset can be very large and in some instances can become the first or second largest source of uncertainty. Using simple examples, we show that the resulting differences could lead to different conclusions with respect to some adaptation solutions or possibly create confusion with users. These results raise questions on the robustness of climate projections distributed through these web platforms and the ethical responsibility of data providers to adequately evaluate and communicate the underlying uncertainty. • The uncertainty of bias-adjusted climate simulations is divided between 5 dimensions. • Observational reference is often an important share of the uncertainty. • The choice of reference can lead to different decisions in climate change adaptation.
Lavoie et al. (Wed,) studied this question.