Statistical bias correction of global simulated daily precipitation and temperature for the application of hydrological models

2010 ◽  
Vol 395 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 199-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Piani ◽  
G.P. Weedon ◽  
M. Best ◽  
S.M. Gomes ◽  
P. Viterbo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Daily Precipitation ◽  
Hydrological Models ◽  
Statistical Bias ◽  
Precipitation And Temperature ◽  
Statistical Bias Correction

scholarly journals Impact of a Statistical Bias Correction on the Projected Hydrological Changes Obtained from Three GCMs and Two Hydrology Models

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 556-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Hagemann ◽  
Cui Chen ◽  
Jan O. Haerter ◽  
Jens Heinke ◽  
Dieter Gerten ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Hydrological Cycle ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Model Output ◽  
Hydrological Models ◽  
Statistical Bias ◽  
Max Planck ◽  
Climate Model Output ◽  
Statistical Bias Correction

Abstract Future climate model scenarios depend crucially on the models’ adequate representation of the hydrological cycle. Within the EU integrated project Water and Global Change (WATCH), special care is taken to use state-of-the-art climate model output for impacts assessments with a suite of hydrological models. This coupling is expected to lead to a better assessment of changes in the hydrological cycle. However, given the systematic errors of climate models, their output is often not directly applicable as input for hydrological models. Thus, the methodology of a statistical bias correction has been developed for correcting climate model output to produce long-term time series with a statistical intensity distribution close to that of the observations. As observations, global reanalyzed daily data of precipitation and temperature were used that were obtained in the WATCH project. Daily time series from three GCMs (GCMs) ECHAM5/Max Planck Institute Ocean Model (MPI-OM), Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques Coupled GCM, version 3 (CNRM-CM3), and the atmospheric component of the L’Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace Coupled Model, version 4 (IPSL CM4) coupled model (called LMDZ-4)—were bias corrected. After the validation of the bias-corrected data, the original and the bias-corrected GCM data were used to force two global hydrology models (GHMs): 1) the hydrological model of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-HM) consisting of the simplified land surface (SL) scheme and the hydrological discharge (HD) model, and 2) the dynamic global vegetation model called LPJmL. The impact of the bias correction on the projected simulated hydrological changes is analyzed, and the simulation results of the two GHMs are compared. Here, the projected changes in 2071–2100 are considered relative to 1961–90. It is shown for both GHMs that the usage of bias-corrected GCM data leads to an improved simulation of river runoff for most catchments. But it is also found that the bias correction has an impact on the climate change signal for specific locations and months, thereby identifying another level of uncertainty in the modeling chain from the GCM to the simulated changes calculated by the GHMs. This uncertainty may be of the same order of magnitude as uncertainty related to the choice of the GCM or GHM. Note that this uncertainty is primarily attached to the GCM and only becomes obvious by applying the statistical bias correction methodology.

scholarly journals Errors in climate model daily precipitation and temperature output: time invariance and implications for bias correction

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 2147-2159 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. P. Maurer ◽  
T. Das ◽  
D. R. Cayan
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
General Circulation ◽  
Daily Precipitation ◽  
Extreme Values ◽  
Circulation Model ◽  
The United States ◽  
Historical Period ◽  
Late 20Th Century ◽  
Precipitation And Temperature ◽  
Gcm Biases

Abstract. When correcting for biases in general circulation model (GCM) output, for example when statistically downscaling for regional and local impacts studies, a common assumption is that the GCM biases can be characterized by comparing model simulations and observations for a historical period. We demonstrate some complications in this assumption, with GCM biases varying between mean and extreme values and for different sets of historical years. Daily precipitation and maximum and minimum temperature from late 20th century simulations by four GCMs over the United States were compared to gridded observations. Using random years from the historical record we select a "base" set and a 10 yr independent "projected" set. We compare differences in biases between these sets at median and extreme percentiles. On average a base set with as few as 4 randomly-selected years is often adequate to characterize the biases in daily GCM precipitation and temperature, at both median and extreme values; 12 yr provided higher confidence that bias correction would be successful. This suggests that some of the GCM bias is time invariant. When characterizing bias with a set of consecutive years, the set must be long enough to accommodate regional low frequency variability, since the bias also exhibits this variability. Newer climate models included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fifth assessment will allow extending this study for a longer observational period and to finer scales.

scholarly journals Effects of climate model radiation, humidity and wind estimates on hydrological simulations

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Haddeland ◽  
J. Heinke ◽  
F. Voß ◽  
S. Eisner ◽  
C. Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Meteorological Data ◽  
Correction Method ◽  
Hydrological Models ◽  
Temperature And Precipitation ◽  
Effects Of Radiation ◽  
Precipitation And Temperature

Abstract. Due to biases in the output of climate models, a bias correction is often needed to make the output suitable for use in hydrological simulations. In most cases only the temperature and precipitation values are bias corrected. However, often there are also biases in other variables such as radiation, humidity and wind speed. In this study we tested to what extent it is also needed to bias correct these variables. Responses to radiation, humidity and wind estimates from two climate models for four large-scale hydrological models are analysed. For the period 1971–2000 these hydrological simulations are compared to simulations using meteorological data based on observations and reanalysis; i.e. the baseline simulation. In both forcing datasets originating from climate models precipitation and temperature are bias corrected to the baseline forcing dataset. Hence, it is only effects of radiation, humidity and wind estimates that are tested here. The direct use of climate model outputs result in substantial different evapotranspiration and runoff estimates, when compared to the baseline simulations. A simple bias correction method is implemented and tested by rerunning the hydrological models using bias corrected radiation, humidity and wind values. The results indicate that bias correction can successfully be used to match the baseline simulations. Finally, historical (1971–2000) and future (2071–2100) model simulations resulting from using bias corrected forcings are compared to the results using non-bias corrected forcings. The relative changes in simulated evapotranspiration and runoff are relatively similar for the bias corrected and non bias corrected hydrological projections, although the absolute evapotranspiration and runoff numbers are often very different. The simulated relative and absolute differences when using bias corrected and non bias corrected climate model radiation, humidity and wind values are, however, smaller than literature reported differences resulting from using bias corrected and non bias corrected climate model precipitation and temperature values.

scholarly journals Investigating statistical bias correction with temporal subsample of the upper Ping River Basin, Thailand

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Srisunee Wuthiwongtyohtin
Keyword(s):  
River Basin ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Daily Rainfall ◽  
Bias Error ◽  
Statistical Bias ◽  
Study Region ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Nonparametric Transformation ◽  
Statistical Bias Correction

Abstract This study aims to investigate different statistical bias correction techniques to improve the output of a regional climate model (RCM) of daily rainfall for the upper Ping River Basin in Northern Thailand. Three subsamples are used for each bias correction method, which are (1) using full calibrated 30-year-period data, (2) seasonal subsampling, and (3) monthly subsampling. The bias correction techniques are classified into three groups, which are (1) distribution-derived transformation, (2) parametric transformation, and (3) nonparametric transformation. Eleven bias correction techniques with three different subsamples are used to derive transfer function parameters to adjust model bias error. Generally, appropriate bias correction methods with optimal subsampling are locally dependent and need to be defined specifically for a study area. The study results show that monthly subsampling would be well established by capturing the monthly mean variation after correcting the model's daily rainfall. The results also give the best-fitted parameter set of the different subsamples. However, applying the full calibrated data and the seasonal subsamples cannot substantially improve internal variability. Thus, the effect of internal climate variability of the study region is greater than the choice of bias correction methods. Of the bias correction approaches, nonparametric transformation performed best in correcting daily rainfall bias error in this study area as evaluated by statistics and frequency distributions. Therefore, using a combination of methods between the nonparametric transformation and monthly subsampling offered the best accuracy and robustness. However, the nonparametric transformation was quite sensitive to the calibration time period.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document