Assessing the limits of bias‐correcting climate model outputs for climate change impact studies

Abstract Bias correction of climate model outputs has emerged as a standard procedure in most recent climate change impact studies. A crucial assumption of all bias correction approaches is that climate model biases are constant over time. The validity of this assumption has important implications for impact studies and needs to be verified to properly address uncertainty in future climate projections. Using 10 climate model simulations, this study specifically tests the bias stationarity of climate model outputs over Canada and the contiguous United States (U.S.) by comparing model outputs with corresponding observations over two 20 year historical periods (1961–1980 and 1981–2000). The results show that precipitation biases are clearly nonstationary over much of Canada and the contiguous U.S. and where they vary over much shorter time scales than those normally considered in climate change impact studies. In particular, the difference in biases over two very close periods of the recent past are, in fact, comparable to the climate change signal between future (2061–2080) and historical (1961–1980) periods for precipitation over large parts of Canada and the contiguous U.S., indicating that the uncertainty of future impacts may have been underestimated in most impact studies. In comparison, temperature bias can be considered to be approximately stationary for most of Canada and the contiguous U.S. when compared with the magnitude of the climate change signal. Given the reality that precipitation is usually considered to be more important than temperature for many impact studies, it is advisable that natural climate variability and climate model sensitivity be better emphasized in future impact studies.