75SOLA, 2020, Vol. 16, 75−79, doi:10.2151/sola.2020-013

©The Author(s) 2020. This is an open access article published by the Meteorological Society of Japan under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (http://creativecommons.org/license/by/4.0).

AbstractThe ensemble average projections of the Coupled Model

Inter-comparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) ensemble show future increases in shortwave radiation at the surface (SW) in Japan. We reveal that the Arctic Oscillation-like atmospheric circulation trends cause cloud cover decreases around Japan, leading to in-creases in the SW.

In many cases, impact assessment studies use the outputs of only a few models due to limited research resources. We find that the four climate models used in the Japanese multisector impact assessment project, S-8, do not sufficiently capture the uncertainty ranges of the CMIP5 ensemble regarding the SW projections. Therefore, the impact assessments using the SW of these four models can be biased. We develop a novel method to select a better subset of models that are more widely distributed and are not biased, unlike the S-8 models.

(Citation: Shiogama, H., R. Ito, Y. Imada, T. Nakaegawa, N. Hirota, N. N. Ishizaki, K. Takahashi, I. Takayabu, and S. Emori, 2020: Selecting future climate projections of surface solar radia-tion in Japan. SOLA, 16, 75−79, doi:10.2151/sola.2020-013.)

1. Introduction

Future projections of downward shortwave radiation (sunlight) on the Earth’s surface (SW) are essential inputs for a wide range of impact assessment studies of anthropogenic climate change, e.g., agriculture, ecosystem, human health and photovoltaic systems. However, while analyses of temperature and precipitation changes in Japan are abundant (e.g., Ogata et al. 2014; Ishizaki et al. 2017; Nayak et al. 2017; Suzuki-Parker et al. 2018; Yokoyama et al. 2019), studies on the future projections of the SW in Japan are limited. Wild et al. (2015) examined the global-scale future pro-jections of the SW of the Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5, Taylor et al. 2012) ensemble up to the year 2049 under representative concentration pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5, van Vuuren et al. 2011). Figure 2 of Wild et al. (2015) shows that the SW increases due to decreases in cloud cover in Japan in the median projections of the CMIP5 ensemble; however, the reason for the cloud cover change is unclear. Therefore, it is worthwhile to investigate the reason causing the future SW increases in Japan.

It should be noted that many impact assessment studies use outputs of only a few global climate models (GCMs) out of many CMIP5 GCMs due to limited research resources and data availability. Furthermore, policy makers are willing to consider a small set of climate scenarios as representative climate futures (Whetton et al. 2012) or storylines (Shepherd 2019) rather than the full GCM ensemble for their planning of adaptation strate-gies. For example, phase 2b of the Intersectoral Impact Model Inter-comparison Project (ISIMIP2b; https://www.isimip.org), a global scale multisector impact assessment project, uses only four GCMs of CMIP5 (Frieler et al. 2017). However, McSweeney and

Jones (2016) and Ito et al. (2019) noted that the selected subset of ISIMIP2b are not ideal because the subset does not broadly represent the uncertainty ranges of the CMIP5 ensemble, regard-ing future changes in temperature and precipitation. Although the CMIP5 ensemble does not necessarily represent the full uncertain-ty in the climate projections (Knutti 2010), it is better to capture the model spread. A coordinated multisector impact assessment project in Japan, “Comprehensive Study on Impact Assessment and Adaptation for Climate Change” (called S-8, http://www.nies.go.jp/s8_project/english/index.html), also used only four GCMs: MRI-CGCM3.0, MIROC5, GFDL CM3, and HadGEM2-ES (Hanasaki et al. 2014). The results of multisector impact assess-ments in S-8 are widely used in climate change adaptation plan-ning in Japanese national and local governments (http://www.env.go.jp/en/earth/cc/adaptation/mat02.pdf). However, no one knows whether this subset adequately captures the uncertainty ranges of CMIP5 or has a biased distribution.

The aims of the present study are to (1) investigate changes in the SW in Japan, (b) examine whether the four GCMs used by S-8 have a biased distribution, and (c) develop a method to select a better subset. Although we focus on the SW, some impact as-sessment models use multiple climate variables, including the SW (e.g., temperature and precipitation). Therefore, the development of model selection methods considering multiple climate variables is important. In the summary and discussion section, we briefly explain how our method could be expanded to consider multiple variables.

2. Data

We analyze 25 GCMs from the CMIP5 ensemble (Table 1). S-8 uses four GCMs (GFDL-CM3, HadGEM2-ES, MIROC5 and MRI-CGCM3) from the CMIP5 ensemble as the common cli-mate scenarios for multisector impact assessments in Japan. The initial-condition-ensemble average of the historical, RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 runs are calculated for each GCM. We examine changes from the 1986−2005 mean to the 2076−2095 mean.

The analyzed variables include the seasonal mean downward shortwave radiation at the surface (SW), cloud cover, and sea level pressure (SLP). Here, winter, spring, summer and autumn are December-February (DJF), March-May (MAM), June-August (JJA) and September-November (SON), respectively. We also compute 8-day high-passed filtered air temperature and meridional wind at the 850-hPa level and examine their multiplication, i.e., the meridional heat transport as the indicator of storm track activ-ity at the low level (vT850). We exclude CESM1-CAM5, GISS-E2-H, GISS-E2-R, HadGEM2-AO, HadGEM2-ES, NorESM1-ME and NorESM1-M of CMIP5 from the analyses using vT850 due to their limited data availability.

In Figs. 1 and 2, we focus on RCP8.5 because of the better signal-to-noise ratio than that of RCP2.6. Changes in the above-mentioned variables of RCP8.5 are divided by the global mean temperature change (ΔT). When we compare RCP8.5 and RCP2.6 in Figs. 3 and 5, we do not divide the variables by ΔT because the low signal-to-noise ratio of ΔT in RCP2.6 adds noise to the results.

Selecting Future Climate Projections of Surface Solar Radiation in Japan

Hideo Shiogama1, 2, Rui Ito3, 4, Yukiko Imada4, Toshiyuki Nakaegawa4, Nagio Hirota1, Noriko N. Ishizaki1, Kiyoshi Takahashi1, Izuru Takayabu4, and Seita Emori1

1National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan2Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan

3Japan Meteorological Business Support Center, Tsukuba, Japan4Meteorological Research Institute, Japan Meteorological Agency, Tsukuba, Japan

Corresponding author: Hideo Shiogama, National Institute for Environ-mental Studies, Tsukuba, 305-0053, Japan. E-mail: shiogama.hideo@nies.go.jp.

76 Shiogama et al., Selecting Future Climate Projections of Surface Solar Radiation in Japan

3. Results

Figure 1 shows the ensemble mean changes in the SW/ΔT, (cloud cover)/ΔT and vT850/ΔT around Japan for each season using RCP8.5. The ensemble average projections show increases in the SW over Japan in all seasons except Hokkaido (the northern island of Japan) in DJF (the top panels of Fig. 1). The increases in the SW are caused by decreases in cloud cover (the middle panels of Fig. 1). The decreases in cloud cover relate to the weakening of storm track activities around Japan (the bottom panels of Fig. 1). Analyses of the clear-sky SW changes indicate that changes in aerosol emissions are important for the SW changes in China but not for those in Japan (not shown).

To investigate the reason for the ensemble mean climate change patterns around Japan, we extend the analyses from Japan to the Northern Hemisphere. We find Arctic Oscillation-like patterns of SLP trends (the bottom panels of Fig. 2), i.e., negative SLP trends in the high-latitude region surrounded by positive SLP trends in the middle-latitude regions of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans (Thompson and Wallace 2000; Collins et al. 2013). These Arctic Oscillation-like patterns accompany poleward shifts of the jet stream (contours of Fig. 2) (Collins et al. 2013), weakening the westerly wind and storm track activities around Japan (the middle panels of Fig. 2). Weakened storm track activities increase the SW in Japan (top panels of Fig. 2).

The above analyses are based on the RCP8.5 scenario. To inform adaptation policies, it is necessary to investigate climate scenarios meeting the 2°C goal of the Paris Agreement (United

Fig. 1. Ensemble mean changes in climate variables around Japan. (top) shortwave (W m−2 °C−1), (middle) cloud cover (%°C−1) and (bottom) vT850 (m s−1 °C°C−1) for DJF, MAM, JJA and SON using RCP8.5. These changes are divided by the global mean temperature changes. Gray shading indicates grids un-der the ground.

Table 1. The analyzed CMIP5 models.

Model name Ensemble size (RCP2.6, 8.5)

MRI-CGCM3MIROC5bcc-csm1-1bcc-csm1-1-mBNU-ESMCanESM2CCSM4CESM1-CAM5CNRM-CM5CSIRO-Mk3-6-0GFDL-CM3GFDL-ESM2GGFDL-ESM2MGISS-E2-HGISS-E2-RHadGEM2-AOHadGEM2-ESIPSL-CM5A-LRIPSL-CM5A-MRMIROC-ESMMIROC-ESM-CHEMMPI-ESM-LRMPI-ESM-MRNorESM1-MNorESM1-ME

1,13,31,11,11,15,56,63,31,1

10,101,11,11,13,33,31,12,24,41,11,11,13,31,11,11,1

DJF MAM JJA SON

SW/∆T

Cloud/∆T

(a)

(%ºC

−1)

vT850/∆T

(ms−

1 ºCºC

−1)

(b) (c) (d)

(e) (f) (g) (h)

(i) (j) (k) (l)

(Wm

−2ºC

−1)

77SOLA, 2020, Vol. 16, 75−79, doi:10.2151/sola.2020-013

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2015), i.e., RCP2.6. Figure 3 shows the scatter plots of the SW averaged over the Japan area (125°E−155°E, 25°N−47.5°N) between RCP8.5 and RCP2.6. There are large positive correlations. Therefore, we confirm that we can use the information obtained from the high radiative forcing scenario (RCP8.5) in the low radiative forcing scenario (RCP2.6). The four S-8 GCMs are not ideally distributed, at least in terms of the solar irradiance changes. The four S-8 GCMs do not cover the upper half of the uncertainty ranges of the SW in MAM. By contrast, the four GCMs are located within the upper half of the range of the SW in JJA and SON.

Furthermore, we develop a method to select a subsample of GCMs that are distributed to widely capture the uncertainty ranges of the CMIP5 ensembles. We define N as the total number of GCMs (25 here). Let X (i, s, e) be the SW of the i-th GCM for the s-th season of the e-th RCP. Y (i, s, e) is the rank of X (i, s, e), i.e., the i-th GCM has the largest SW for the s-th season of the e-th RCP if Y (i, s, e) = N. We refer to M as the number of subsamples of GCMs that can be selected. We randomly sample R-times Y (i, s, e) of M GCMs, which are denoted by Z ( j, r, s, e) ( j = 1, …, M ; r = 1, …, R). Here, R is 10,000. We compute the mean distance (D (M, r)) of the subsamples as follows:

D M r

M MZ k r s e Z j r s e

e s k j

M

j

M

( , )

( )( ( , , , ) ( , , , ))

=

−−∑∑ ∑∑

> =

−18

21

2 4

1

12 ..

(Eq. 1)

Fig. 3. Scatter plots of the SW (W m−2) of Japan between RCP2.6 and RCP8.5. (a) DJF, (b) MAM, (c) JJA and (d) SON. Blue, red, green and light blue diamonds are the S-8 GCM subset, GFDL-CM3, HadGEM2-ES, MIROC5 and MRI-CGCM3, respectively. Black crosses are the other GCMs. Dotted lines indicate the ensemble mean values.

Fig. 2. Ensemble mean changes in climate variables in the Northern Hemisphere. (top) shortwave (W m−2 °C−1), (middle) vT850 (m s−1 °C°C−1) and (bottom) sea level pressure (hPa °C−1) for DJF, MAM, JJA and SON using RCP8.5. Gray shading indicates grids under the ground. Red and blue contours indicate positive and negative changes in zonal wind at 300 hPa (the interval is 0.15 m s−1 °C−1, and the counters of zero are omitted), respectively. These changes are divided by the global mean temperature changes.

DJF MAM JJA SONSW

/∆T

vT850/∆T

(a) (b) (c) (d)

(e) (f) (g) (h)

(Wm

−2ºC

−1)

(hPa

ºC−1

)(m

s−1 ºC

ºC−1

)

SLP/∆T

(i) (j) (k) (l)

Corr.=0.89 Corr.=0.69

Corr.=0.79 Corr.=0.80

(W/m2)DJF, SW

0 2 4 6 8 10RCP2.6

0

2

4

6

810

RC

P8.5

GFDL-CM3HadGEM2-ESMIROC5MRI-CGCM3

MAM, SW

0 5 10 15RCP2.6

0

5

10

15

RC

P8.5

JJA, SW

0 5 10 15RCP2.6

0

5

10

15

RC

P8.5

SON, SW

0 2 4 6 8 10RCP2.6

0

2

4

6

810

RC

P8.5

(W/m2)

(W/m2)

(W/m2)

78 Shiogama et al., Selecting Future Climate Projections of Surface Solar Radiation in Japan

By using the rank Y (i, s, e) instead of X (i, s, e), our method is insensitive to the existence of outlier GCMs. Larger D (M, r) values indicate a wider and more unbiased distribution of subsam-ples in the rank space.

Figure 4 shows the mean distance of the SW as a function of the selected model numbers, M. Black solid, dotted and dashed lines indicate the maximum, 50% and minimum values of the 10,000 random samples, respectively. As the selected model number M increases, the min-max range shrinks. The red cross de-notes the mean distance of the four GCMs used in S-8. The mean distance of S-8 is lower than the 50% value of D (4, r), suggesting that the S-8 subsample is not an ideal choice, at least for the SW scenarios in Japan.

It is a usual practice for national research projects related to impact assessments and adaptation strategies to use climate scenarios including those from national GCMs, because technical support is available from national modeling centers. In Japan, MRI-CGCM3 and MIROC5 are the national GCMs in the CMIP5 generations and are involved in the S-8 subset. Using our method, we can also select the maximum distance subsample including MRI-CGCM3 and MIROC5 (blue line of Fig. 4).

The diamonds of Fig. 5 show the SW changes in the maxi-mum distance subsample, including MRI-CGCM3 and MIROC5, in a scenario in which we can select eight GCMs. The selected models are MRI-CGCM3, MIROC5, GFDL-CM3, IPSL-CM5A-LR, BNU-ESM, HadGEM2-AO, GISS-E2-R and CCSM4. The selected GCMs (Fig. 5) are widely distributed and are not biased, unlike the S-8 subset shown in Fig. 5, at least in relation to the SW scenarios of Japan.

4. Summary and discussion

We characterize the future projections of solar radiation changes in the CMIP5 ensemble in Japan. The Arctic Oscillation- like pattern of the SLP trends causes a weakening of westerly wind and storm-track activity, decreasing cloud cover, and in-creasing SW. The changes in SW would lead to increases in the photovoltaic energy potential. However, the increases in photo-voltaic energy potential could be canceled by decreases in wind energy potential due to weakening of wind (Ohba 2019) (Fig. 2). It is worth assessing climate change effects on the combined potential of photovoltaic and wind energies in Japan.

We examine whether the four GCMs used in the Japanese multisector impact assessment project, S-8, sufficiently capture the uncertainty ranges of the CMIP5 ensemble. The four GCMs do not capture the ranges of the CMIP5 ensemble and are biased: the four S-8 GCMs are biased lower for MAM and higher for JJA and SON. Therefore, impact assessments using the solar radiation scenarios of these four GCMs may be biased.

We also develop the method to select a better subset of GCMs. The selected GCMs are widely distributed and are not biased,

unlike the S-8 subset. Our method is somewhat similar to that of Cannon (2015), who successively selected a GCM with the maximum distance from previously selected GCMs, whereas we select the maximum distance subset from the randomly resampled GCMs. Although we use only the SW as the indicator to select the GCMs in this study, we can easily extend our method to include other indicators (e.g., temperature and precipitation changes). By computing the ranks of GCMs for each indicator, we can combine multiple indicators without considering their units. Previous stud-ies (McSweeney et al. 2012; Cannan 2015; Mendlik and Gobiet 2016) also used multiple variables to select GCMs. McSweeney et al. (2012) and Mendlik and Gobiet (2016) considered the spatial patterns of changes in variables in their model selection processes. It may be better to consider changes in, for example, Asian monsoon and Arctic Oscillation to select models for impact assessments in Japan as well as changes in reginal mean variables. We do not consider the performance in the historical simulations of each GCM projection in the current method.

For a next project of impact and adaptation studies in Japan, we are developing an extended method considering many vari-ables, the performances of the present climate simulations and the spread of the future projections. We will represent those results in a future paper.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by ERTDF 2-1904 (Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency, Japan), the Integrated Research Program for Advancing Climate Models (JPMXD 0717935457 and JPMXD0717935561) (MEXT, Japan) and the Climate Change Adaptation Research Program of NIES.

Edited by: R. Kawamura

References

Cannan, A. L., 2015: Selecting GCM scenarios that span the range of changes in a multimodel ensemble: Application to CMIP5 climate extremes indices. J. Climate, 28, 1260−1267.

Collins, M., R. Knutti, J. Arblaster, J.-L. Dufresne, T. Fichefet, P. Friedlingstein, X. Gao, W. J. Gutowski, T. Johns, G. Krinner,

Fig. 4. The mean distances of GCMs (vertical axis) as a function of the selected model numbers (horizontal axis). Black solid, dotted and dashed lines indicate the maximum, 50% and minimum values of the 10,000 random samples, respectively. The blue line shows the maximum values of the 10,000 random samples, including MRI-CGCM3 and MIROC5. The red cross denotes the mean distance of the S-8 GCM subset.

Fig. 5. Scatter plots of the SW (W m−2) of Japan between RCP2.6 and RCP8.5. The same as Fig. 3 but MRI-CGCM3, MIROC5 and the other six GCMs selected are indicated by light blue, green and red diamonds, respectively.

5 10 15 20 25Number of selected model

46

8

10

12

14

mea

n di

st. o

f SW

(W/m2) (W/m2)

(W/m2) (W/m2)DJF, SW

0 2 4 6 8 10RCP2.6

0

2

4

6

810

RC

P8.5

MRI-CGCM3

MIROC5

GFDL-CM3

IPSL-CM5A-LR

BNU-ESM

HadGEM2-AO

GISS-E2-R

CCSM4

MAM, SW

0 5 10 15RCP2.6

0

5

10

15

RC

P8.5

MRI-CGCM3

MIROC5

GFDL-CM3

IPSL-CM5A-LR

BNU-ESM

HadGEM2-AO

GISS-E2-R

CCSM4

JJA, SW

0 5 10 15RCP2.6

0

5

10

15

RC

P8.5 MRI-CGCM3

MIROC5

GFDL-CM3

IPSL-CM5A-LR

BNU-ESM

HadGEM2-AO

GISS-E2-R

CCSM4

SON, SW

0 2 4 6 8 10RCP2.6

0

2

4

6

810

RC

P8.5

MRI-CGCM3

MIROC5

GFDL-CM3

IPSL-CM5A-LR

BNU-ESM

HadGEM2-AO

GISS-E2-RCCSM4

79SOLA, 2020, Vol. 16, 75−79, doi:10.2151/sola.2020-013

M. Shongwe, C. Tebaldi, A. J. Weaver, and M. Wehner, 2013: Long-term climate change: Projections, commitments and irreversibility. Climate Change. The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assess-ment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P. M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Frieler, K., S. Lange, F. Piontek, C. P. O. Reyer, J. Schewe, L. Warszawski, F. Zhao, L. Chini, S. Denvil, K. Emanuel, T. Geiger, K. Halladay, G. Hurtt, M. Mengel, D. Murakami, S. Ostberg, A. Popp, R. Riva, M. Stevanovic, T. Suzuki, J. Volkholz, E. Burke, P. Ciais, K. Ebi, T. D. Eddy, J. Elliott, E. Galbraith, S. N. Gosling, F. Hattermann, T. Hickler, J. Hinkel, C. Hof, V. Huber, J. Jägermeyr, V. Krysanova, R. Marcé, H. Müller Schmied, I. Mouratiadou, D. Pierson, D. P. Tittensor, R. Vautard, M. van Vliet, M. F. Biber, R. A. Betts, B. Ll Bodirsky, D. Deryng, S. Frolking, C. D. Jones, H. K. Lotze, H. Lotze-Campen, R. Sahajpal, K. Thonicke, H. Tian, and Y. Yamagata, 2017: Assessing the impacts of 1.5°C global warming – simulation protocol of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2b). Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4321−4345, doi:10.5194/gmd-10-4321-2017.

Hanasaki, N., K. Takahashi, Y. Hijioka, H. Kusaka, T. Iizumi, T. Ariga, K. Matsuhashi, and N. Mimura, 2014: Climate, pop-ulation, and land use scenarios for climate change impacts and adaptation polices assessments in Japan (second edi-tion). Environ. Sci., 27, 362−373, doi:10.11353/sesj.27.362. (in Japanese)

Ishizaki, N. N., K. Dairaku, and G. Ueno, 2017: Regional proba-bilistic climate projection for Japan with a regression model using multi-model ensemble experiments. Hydrol. Res. Lett., 11, 44−50, doi:10.3178/hrl.11.44.

Ito, R., H. Shiogama, T. Nakaegawa, and I. Takayabu, 2019: Uncertainties in climate change projections covered by the ISIMIP and CORDEX model subsets from CMIP5. Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., doi:10.5194/gmd-2019-143, in review.

Knutti, R., 2010: The end of model democracy? Climatic Change, 102, 395−404, doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9800-2.

McSweeney, C. F., and R. G. Jones, 2016: How representative is the spread of climate projections from the 5 CMIP5 GCMs used in ISI-MIP? Clim. Serv., 1, 24−29, doi:10.1016/J.CLISER.2016.02.001.

McSweeney, C. F., R. G. Jones, and B. B. B. Booth, 2012: Select-ing ensemble members to provide regional climate change information. J. Climate, 25, 7100−7121.

Mendlik, T., and A. Gobiet, 2016: Selecting climate simulations for impact studies based on multivariate patterns of climate

change. Climatic Change, 135, 381−393.Nayak, S., K. Dairaku, I. Takayabu, A. Suzuki-Parker, and N. N.

Ishizaki, 2017: Extreme precipitation linked to temperature over Japan: current evaluation and projected changes with multi-model ensemble downscaling. Climate Dyn., 51, 4385−4401.

Ogata, T., H. Ueda, T. Inoue, M. Hayasaki, A. Yoshida, S. Wata-nabe, M. Hira, M. Ooshiro, and A. Kumai, 2014: Projected future changes in the Asian monsoon: A comparison of CMIP3 and CMIP5 model results. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan, 92, 207−225, doi:10.2151/jmsj.2014-302.

Ohba, M., 2019: The Impact of Global Warming on Wind Energy Resources and Ramp Events in Japan. Atmosphere, 10, 265, doi:10.3390/atmos10050265.

Shepherd, T. G., 2019: Storyline approach to the construction of regional climate change information. Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 475, 20190013, doi:10.1098/rspa.2019.0013.

Suzuki-Parker, A., H. Kusaka, I. Takayabu, K. Dairaku, N. N. Ishizaki, and S. Ham, 2018: Contributions of GCM/RCM uncertainty in ensemble dynamical downscaling for precip-itation in East Asian summer monsoon season. SOLA, 14, 97−104, doi:10.2151/sola.2018-017.

Taylor, K. E., R. J. Stouffer, and G. A. Meehl, 2012: An overview of CMIP5 and experimental design. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, 485−498.

Thompson, D. W. J., and J. M. Wallace, 2000: Annular modes in the extratropical circulation. Part II: Trends. J. Climate, 13, 1018−1036.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2015: Adoption of the Paris agreement. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1.

van Vuuren, D. P., J. Edmonds, M. Kainuma, K. Riahi, A. Thom-son, K. Hibbard, and co-authors, 2011: The representative concentration pathways: An overview. Climatic Change, 109, 5−31, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z.

Whetton, P., K. Hennessy, J. Clarke, K. McInnes, and D. Kent, 2012: Use of Representative Climate Futures in impact and adaptation assessment. Climatic Change, 115, 433−442.

Wild, M., D. Folini, F. Henschel, N. Fischer, and B. Müller, 2015: Projections of long-term changes in solar radiation based on CMIP5 climate models and their influence on energy yields of photovoltaic systems. Sol. Energy., 116, 12−24.

Yokoyama, C., Y. N. Takayabu, O. Arakawa, and T. Ose, 2019: A study on future projections of precipitation characteristics around Japan in early summer combining GPM DPR obser-vation and CMIP5 large-scale environments. J. Climate, 32, 5251−5274.

Manuscript received 24 December 2019, accepted 16 March 2020SOLA: https://www. jstage. jst.go. jp/browse/sola/