is bias correction of regional climate model (rcm) simulations possible for non-stationary conditions?
Clicks: 137
ID: 236745
2013
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
137 views
16 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #192 of 303 articles by views in materials research bulletin
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 303 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
In hydrological climate-change impact studies, regional climate models
(RCMs) are commonly used to transfer large-scale global climate model (GCM)
data to smaller scales and to provide more detailed regional information.
Due to systematic and random model errors, however, RCM simulations often
show considerable deviations from observations. This has led to the
development of a number of correction approaches that rely on the assumption
that RCM errors do not change over time. It is in principle not possible to
test whether this underlying assumption of error stationarity is actually
fulfilled for future climate conditions. In this study, however, we
demonstrate that it is possible to evaluate how well correction methods
perform for conditions different from those used for calibration with the
relatively simple differential split-sample test.
For five Swedish catchments, precipitation and temperature simulations from 15 different RCMs driven by ERA40 (the 40 yr reanalysis product of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)) were corrected with different commonly used bias correction methods. We then performed differential split-sample tests by dividing the data series into cold and warm respective dry and wet years. This enabled us to cross-evaluate the performance of different correction procedures under systematically varying climate conditions. The differential split-sample test identified major differences in the ability of the applied correction methods to reduce model errors and to cope with non-stationary biases. More advanced correction methods performed better, whereas large deviations remained for climate model simulations corrected with simpler approaches. Therefore, we question the use of simple correction methods such as the widely used delta-change approach and linear transformation for RCM-based climate-change impact studies. Instead, we recommend using higher-skill correction methods such as distribution mapping.
For five Swedish catchments, precipitation and temperature simulations from 15 different RCMs driven by ERA40 (the 40 yr reanalysis product of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)) were corrected with different commonly used bias correction methods. We then performed differential split-sample tests by dividing the data series into cold and warm respective dry and wet years. This enabled us to cross-evaluate the performance of different correction procedures under systematically varying climate conditions. The differential split-sample test identified major differences in the ability of the applied correction methods to reduce model errors and to cope with non-stationary biases. More advanced correction methods performed better, whereas large deviations remained for climate model simulations corrected with simpler approaches. Therefore, we question the use of simple correction methods such as the widely used delta-change approach and linear transformation for RCM-based climate-change impact studies. Instead, we recommend using higher-skill correction methods such as distribution mapping.
| Reference Key |
teutschbein2013hydrologyis
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;C. Teutschbein;J. Seibert |
| Journal | materials research bulletin |
| Year | 2013 |
| DOI |
10.5194/hess-17-5061-2013
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.