scholarly journals On the contribution of statistical bias correction to the uncertainty in the projected hydrological cycle

2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (20) ◽  
pp. n/a-n/a ◽  
Author(s):  
Cui Chen ◽  
Jan O. Haerter ◽  
Stefan Hagemann ◽  
Claudio Piani
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Hydrological Cycle ◽  
Statistical Bias ◽  
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 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.

scholarly journals Statistical bias correction for creating coherent total ozone record from OMI and OMPS observations

2016 ◽  
Vol 182 ◽  
pp. 150-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaixu Bai ◽  
Ni-Bin Chang ◽  
Huijia Yu ◽  
Wei Gao
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Total Ozone ◽  
Statistical Bias ◽  
Statistical Bias Correction

Impact of statistical bias correction on the projected climate change signals of the regional climate model REMO over the Senegal River Basin

2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 2035-2049 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mamadou L. Mbaye ◽  
Andreas Haensler ◽  
Stefan Hagemann ◽  
Amadou T. Gaye ◽  
Christopher Moseley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Regional Climate Model ◽  
River Basin ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Statistical Bias ◽  
Senegal River ◽  
Senegal River Basin ◽  
Statistical Bias Correction

scholarly journals The effect of empirical-statistical correction of intensity-dependent model errors on the temperature climate change signal

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 4055-4066 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Gobiet ◽  
M. Suklitsch ◽  
G. Heinrich
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Model Uncertainty ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Change Signal ◽  
Model Errors ◽  
Statistical Bias ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Dependent Model ◽  
Temperature Climate ◽  
Statistical Bias Correction

Abstract. This study discusses the effect of empirical-statistical bias correction methods like quantile mapping (QM) on the temperature change signals of climate simulations. We show that QM regionally alters the mean temperature climate change signal (CCS) derived from the ENSEMBLES multi-model data set by up to 15 %. Such modification is currently strongly discussed and is often regarded as deficiency of bias correction methods. However, an analytical analysis reveals that this modification corresponds to the effect of intensity-dependent model errors on the CCS. Such errors cause, if uncorrected, biases in the CCS. QM removes these intensity-dependent errors and can therefore potentially lead to an improved CCS. A similar analysis as for the multi-model mean CCS has been conducted for the variance of CCSs in the multi-model ensemble. It shows that this indicator for model uncertainty is artificially inflated by intensity-dependent model errors. Therefore, QM also has the potential to serve as an empirical constraint on model uncertainty in climate projections. However, any improvement of simulated CCSs by empirical-statistical bias correction methods can only be realized if the model error characteristics are sufficiently time-invariant.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document