the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Non-Stationary Dynamics of Compound Climate Extremes: A WRF-CMIP6-GAMLSS Framework for Risk Reassessment in Southeastern China
Abstract. Understanding future changes in compound climate extremes (CCEs) is critical for climate risk assessment. However, existing research have relied on stationary assumptions, overlooking the dynamic evolution of CCEs under non-stationary climate change. Therefore, based on an enhanced Generalized Additive Models for Location, Scale, and Shape (GAMLSS), this study provides novel perspectives into the non-stationary characteristics of hot-wet (HW), hot-dry (HD), cold-wet (CW), and cold-dry (CD) extremes under future climate scenarios, focusing on the Minjiang River Basin (MRB), located in Southeast China. The high-resolution dataset employed for CCEs detection is generated through dynamical downscaling of a bias-corrected CMIP6 dataset, utilizing the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. The results show that (1) CCEs increase significantly at a rate of 3.55d/10a under the SSP5-8.5 scenario, with hot extremes (HW and HD) playing a dominant role. The spatial distribution exhibits a distinct west to east increasing gradient, peaking in the MRB downstream areas. (2) Under the SSP5-8.5 scenario, CCEs exhibit a marked transition from stationary to non-stationary characteristics, with non-stationarity detected in 95.20 % of grid cells. Mean warming, not variability, served as the dominant factor behind this transition, explaining 80.81 % of the changes. (3) The non-stationary results demonstrate that the severity and recurrence risks of CCEs are systematically underestimated. Most CCEs (except for CD) exhibit increasing recurrence risks under the SSP5-8.5 scenario, with a trend of 3.12d/10a in the 100-year return period, showing a stronger increase. This study emphasizes the necessity of updating the risk changes of CCEs under a non-stationary framework.
- Preprint
(10107 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1254 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2438', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Oct 2025 reply
Data sets
Bias-corrected CMIP6 global dataset Zhongfeng Xu https://www.scidb.cn/en/detail?dataSetId=791587189614968832&version=V4
the fifth generation ECMWF reanalysis European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset
Model code and software
GAMLSS code R. A. Rigby and D. M. Stasinopoulos https://github.com/gamlss-dev/gamlss
WRF code National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) https://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/OnLineTutorial/Compile/index.php
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 882 | 114 | 19 | 1,015 | 76 | 20 | 33 |
- HTML: 882
- PDF: 114
- XML: 19
- Total: 1,015
- Supplement: 76
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 33
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
I think this work focuses on a very nice issue with clear novelty, as it utilizes the combined WRF-CMIP6-GAMLSS framework to investigate the non-stationary dynamics of compound climate extremes. It is applicable and important for climate change studies and its effect on compound extremes, especially considering their non-stationary characteristics. The manuscript is well-written, the results are well-discussed, and every section is appropriate with sufficient explanation.
Accordingly, I recommend this manuscript for publication; however, you may consider the minor comments as follows:
1-In the introduction, where you mention the need for fine-resolution models, you may need to add the reasons for the required high-resolution models for capturing compound extremes (e.g., local convective precipitation, spatial heterogeneity, …).
2-May you please check the following articles and discuss how you improve their work and what your innovation is compared to it?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-020-05538-2
3-May you make a list of the 18 climate models you applied for your study in the supplementary file?
4-you mentioned that “The dataset used in this study covers the historical period (2005–2014)”, why did you chose only 10 years as historical data?
5-Why did you only use SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5? Why not SSP1-2.6?
6-Please make clearer how the downscaling integrates with your GAMLSS framework.
7-Please make it clear what you mean by “enhanced” or “advanced” GAMLSS in the manuscript. Do you mean the GAMLSS, which considers non-stationary characteristics?
8-In the supplementary file, please provide a table showing the validation results.
9-In the results and discussion, I could not find how the results show that considering the non-stationary characteristics leads to better or more reliable results. May you compare the results with previous studies in which the time series was assumed to be stationary?
10-The English language also should be assessed more carefully.