scholarly journals Constructing High-Resolution, Bias-Corrected Climate Products: A Comparison of Methods

2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-475
Author(s):  
Maike F. Holthuijzen ◽  
Brian Beckage ◽  
Patrick J. Clemins ◽  
Dave Higdon ◽  
Jonathan M. Winter
Keyword(s):  
High Resolution ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Maximum Temperature ◽  
Daily Maximum Temperature ◽  
Model Output ◽  
Quantile Mapping ◽  
Station Data ◽  
Climate Model Output ◽  
Mapping Techniques

AbstractHigh-resolution, bias-corrected climate data are necessary for climate impact studies at local scales. Gridded historical data are convenient for bias correction but may contain biases resulting from interpolation. Long-term, quality-controlled station data are generally superior climatological measurements, but because the distribution of climate stations is irregular, station data are challenging to incorporate into downscaling and bias-correction approaches. Here, we compared six novel methods for constructing full-coverage, high-resolution, bias-corrected climate products using daily maximum temperature simulations from a regional climate model (RCM). Only station data were used for bias correction. We quantified performance of the six methods with the root-mean-square-error (RMSE) and Perkins skill score (PSS) and used two ANOVA models to analyze how performance varied among methods. We validated the six methods using two calibration periods of observed data (1980–89 and 1980–2014) and two testing sets of RCM data (1990–2014 and 1980–2014). RMSE for all methods varied throughout the year and was larger in cold months, whereas PSS was more consistent. Quantile-mapping bias-correction techniques substantially improved PSS, while simple linear transfer functions performed best in improving RMSE. For the 1980–89 calibration period, simple quantile-mapping techniques outperformed empirical quantile mapping (EQM) in improving PSS. When calibration and testing time periods were equivalent, EQM resulted in the largest improvements in PSS. No one method performed best in both RMSE and PSS. Our results indicate that simple quantile-mapping techniques are less prone to overfitting than EQM and are suitable for processing future climate model output, whereas EQM is ideal for bias correcting historical climate model output.

scholarly journals Technical Note: The impact of spatial scale in bias correction of climate model output for hydrologic impact studies

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 685-696 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. P. Maurer ◽  
D. L. Ficklin ◽  
W. Wang
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Scale ◽  
Statistical Downscaling ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Model Output ◽  
Quantile Mapping ◽  
Impact Studies ◽  
Mapping Bias ◽  
Climate Model Output

Abstract. Statistical downscaling is a commonly used technique for translating large-scale climate model output to a scale appropriate for assessing impacts. To ensure downscaled meteorology can be used in climate impact studies, downscaling must correct biases in the large-scale signal. A simple and generally effective method for accommodating systematic biases in large-scale model output is quantile mapping, which has been applied to many variables and shown to reduce biases on average, even in the presence of non-stationarity. Quantile-mapping bias correction has been applied at spatial scales ranging from hundreds of kilometers to individual points, such as weather station locations. Since water resources and other models used to simulate climate impacts are sensitive to biases in input meteorology, there is a motivation to apply bias correction at a scale fine enough that the downscaled data closely resemble historically observed data, though past work has identified undesirable consequences to applying quantile mapping at too fine a scale. This study explores the role of the spatial scale at which the quantile-mapping bias correction is applied, in the context of estimating high and low daily streamflows across the western United States. We vary the spatial scale at which quantile-mapping bias correction is performed from 2° ( ∼  200 km) to 1∕8° ( ∼  12 km) within a statistical downscaling procedure, and use the downscaled daily precipitation and temperature to drive a hydrology model. We find that little additional benefit is obtained, and some skill is degraded, when using quantile mapping at scales finer than approximately 0.5° ( ∼  50 km). This can provide guidance to those applying the quantile-mapping bias correction method for hydrologic impacts analysis.

Assessment of future flood intensification in Central Vietnam using a super-high-resolution climate model output

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 373-389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Do Hoai Nam ◽  
Keiko Udo ◽  
Akira Mano
Keyword(s):  
High Resolution ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Global Climate Model ◽  
Annual Rainfall ◽  
Model Output ◽  
Correction Model ◽  
Central Vietnam ◽  
The Future ◽  
Climate Model Output

This paper presents an assessment of the changes in future floods. The ranked area-average heavy daily rainfall amounts simulated by a super-high-resolution (20 km mesh) global climate model output are corrected with consideration of the effects of the topography on heavy rainfall patterns and used as a basis to model design storm hyetographs. The rainfall data are then used as the input for a nearly calibration-free parameter rainfall–runoff model to simulate floods in the future climate (2075–2099) at the Upper Thu Bon River basin in Central Vietnam. The results show that although the future mean annual rainfall will not be considerably different compared to the present-day climate (1979–2003), extreme rainfall is projected to increase vigorously, leading to a similar order of intensification of future floods. It is very likely that the flood peak with a 25-year recurrence will increase approximately 42% relative to the present-day climate. The occurrence of floods with a 10-year recurrence may exceed those with a 25-year recurrence in the present-day climate. The projection results also exhibit insignificant uncertainties caused by an artificial neural network-based bias correction model. Additionally, the presented bias correction model shows advantages over a simple climatology scaling method.

scholarly journals Technical Note: The impact of spatial scale in bias correction of climate model output for hydrologic impact studies

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 10893-10920 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. P. Maurer ◽  
D. L. Ficklin ◽  
W. Wang
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Scale ◽  
Statistical Downscaling ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Model Output ◽  
Quantile Mapping ◽  
Impact Studies ◽  
Mapping Bias ◽  
Climate Model Output

Abstract. Statistical downscaling is a commonly used technique for translating large-scale climate model output to a scale appropriate for assessing impacts. To ensure downscaled meteorology can be used in climate impact studies, downscaling must correct biases in the large-scale signal. A simple and generally effective method for accommodating systematic biases in large-scale model output is quantile mapping, which has been applied to many variables and shown to reduce biases on average, even in the presence of non-stationarity. Quantile mapping bias correction has been applied at spatial scales ranging from areas of hundreds of kilometers to individual points, such as weather station locations. Since water resources and other models used to simulate climate impacts are sensitive to biases in input meteorology, there is a motivation to apply bias correction at a scale fine enough that the downscaled data closely resembles historically observed data, though past work has identified undesirable consequences to applying quantile mapping at too fine a scale. This study explores the role of the spatial scale at which the quantile-mapping bias correction is applied, in the context of estimating high and low daily streamflows across the Western United States. We vary the spatial scale at which quantile mapping bias correction is performed from 2° (∼ 200 km) to 1/8° (∼ 12 km) within a statistical downscaling procedure, and use the downscaled daily precipitation and temperature to drive a hydrology model. We find that little additional benefit is obtained, and some skill is degraded, when using quantile mapping at scales finer than approximately 0.5° (∼ 50 km). This can provide guidance to those applying the quantile mapping bias correction method for hydrologic impacts analysis.

Multivariate Bias Correction of Climate Model Output: Matching Marginal Distributions and Intervariable Dependence Structure

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (19) ◽  
pp. 7045-7064 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex J. Cannon
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Water Vapor Transport ◽  
Dependence Structure ◽  
Model Output ◽  
Quantile Mapping ◽  
Marginal Distributions ◽  
Temperature And Precipitation ◽  
Climate Model Output

Abstract Univariate bias correction algorithms, such as quantile mapping, are used to address systematic biases in climate model output. Intervariable dependence structure (e.g., between different quantities like temperature and precipitation or between sites) is typically ignored, which can have an impact on subsequent calculations that depend on multiple climate variables. A novel multivariate bias correction (MBC) algorithm is introduced as a multidimensional analog of univariate quantile mapping. Two variants are presented. MBCp and MBCr respectively correct Pearson correlation and Spearman rank correlation dependence structure, with marginal distributions in both constrained to match observed distributions via quantile mapping. MBC is demonstrated on two case studies: 1) bivariate bias correction of monthly temperature and precipitation output from a large ensemble of climate models and 2) multivariate correction of vertical humidity and wind profiles, including subsequent calculation of vertically integrated water vapor transport and detection of atmospheric rivers. The energy distance is recommended as an omnibus measure of performance for model selection. As expected, substantial improvements in performance relative to quantile mapping are found in each case. For reference, characteristics of the MBC algorithm are compared against existing bivariate and multivariate bias correction techniques. MBC performs competitively and fills a role as a flexible, general purpose multivariate bias correction algorithm.

scholarly journals Does Quantile Mapping of Simulated Precipitation Correct for Biases in Transition Probabilities and Spell Lengths?

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 1605-1615 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Rajczak ◽  
Sven Kotlarski ◽  
Christoph Schär
Keyword(s):  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Weather Generator ◽  
Mapping Technique ◽  
Model Output ◽  
Quantile Mapping ◽  
Stochastic Weather Generator ◽  
Simulated Precipitation ◽  
Climate Model Output

Abstract Climate impact studies constitute the basis for the formulation of adaptation strategies. Usually such assessments apply statistically postprocessed output of climate model projections to force impact models. Increasingly, time series with daily resolution are used, which require high consistency, for instance with respect to transition probabilities (TPs) between wet and dry days and spell durations. However, both climate models and commonly applied statistical tools have considerable uncertainties and drawbacks. This paper compares the ability of 1) raw regional climate model (RCM) output, 2) bias-corrected RCM output, and 3) a conventional weather generator (WG) that has been calibrated to match observed TPs to simulate the sequence of dry, wet, and very wet days at a set of long-term weather stations across Switzerland. The study finds systematic biases in TPs and spell lengths for raw RCM output, but a substantial improvement after bias correction using the deterministic quantile mapping technique. For the region considered, bias-corrected climate model output agrees well with observations in terms of TPs as well as dry and wet spell durations. For the majority of cases (models and stations) bias-corrected climate model output is similar in skill to a simple Markov chain stochastic weather generator. There is strong evidence that bias-corrected climate model simulations capture the atmospheric event sequence more realistically than a simple WG.

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 Improved Bias Correction Techniques for Hydrological Simulations of Climate Change*

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 2421-2442 ◽  
Author(s):  
David W. Pierce ◽  
Daniel R. Cayan ◽  
Edwin P. Maurer ◽  
John T. Abatzoglou ◽  
Katherine C. Hegewisch
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Global Climate Model ◽  
Cumulative Distribution ◽  
Maximum Temperature ◽  
Daily Maximum Temperature ◽  
Climate Change Signal ◽  
Daily Maximum ◽  
Temperature And Precipitation

Abstract Global climate model (GCM) output typically needs to be bias corrected before it can be used for climate change impact studies. Three existing bias correction methods, and a new one developed here, are applied to daily maximum temperature and precipitation from 21 GCMs to investigate how different methods alter the climate change signal of the GCM. The quantile mapping (QM) and cumulative distribution function transform (CDF-t) bias correction methods can significantly alter the GCM’s mean climate change signal, with differences of up to 2°C and 30% points for monthly mean temperature and precipitation, respectively. Equidistant quantile matching (EDCDFm) bias correction preserves GCM changes in mean daily maximum temperature but not precipitation. An extension to EDCDFm termed PresRat is introduced, which generally preserves the GCM changes in mean precipitation. Another problem is that GCMs can have difficulty simulating variance as a function of frequency. To address this, a frequency-dependent bias correction method is introduced that is twice as effective as standard bias correction in reducing errors in the models’ simulation of variance as a function of frequency, and it does so without making any locations worse, unlike standard bias correction. Last, a preconditioning technique is introduced that improves the simulation of the annual cycle while still allowing the bias correction to take account of an entire season’s values at once.

scholarly journals Comparison of Statistical and Dynamic Downscaling Techniques in Generating High-Resolution Temperatures in China from CMIP5 GCMs

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei Zhang ◽  
YinLong Xu ◽  
ChunChun Meng ◽  
XinHua Li ◽  
Huan Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Resolution ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Global Climate Models ◽  
Maximum Temperature ◽  
The Tibetan Plateau ◽  
Dynamic Downscaling

AbstractIn aiming for better access to climate change information and for providing climate service, it is important to obtain reliable high-resolution temperature simulations. Systematic comparisons are still deficient between statistical and dynamic downscaling techniques because of their inherent unavoidable uncertainties. In this paper, 20 global climate models (GCMs) and one regional climate model [Providing Regional Climates to Impact Studies (PRECIS)] are employed to evaluate their capabilities in reproducing average trends of mean temperature (Tm), maximum temperature (Tmax), minimum temperature (Tmin), diurnal temperature range (DTR), and extreme events represented by frost days (FD) and heat-wave days (HD) across China. It is shown generally that bias of temperatures from GCMs relative to observations is over ±1°C across more than one-half of mainland China. PRECIS demonstrates better representation of temperatures (except for HD) relative to GCMs. There is relatively better performance in Huanghuai, Jianghuai, Jianghan, south Yangzi River, and South China, whereas estimation is not as good in Xinjiang, the eastern part of northwest China, and the Tibetan Plateau. Bias-correction spatial disaggregation is used to downscale GCMs outputs, and bias correction is applied for PRECIS outputs, which demonstrate better improvement to a bias within ±0.2°C for Tm, Tmax, Tmin, and DTR and ±2 days for FD and HD. Furthermore, such improvement is also verified by the evidence of increased spatial correlation coefficient and symmetrical uncertainty, decreased root-mean-square error, and lower standard deviation for reproductions. It is seen from comprehensive ranking metrics that different downscaled models show the most improvement across different climatic regions, implying that optional ensembles of models should be adopted to provide sufficient high-quality climate information.

scholarly journals Bias correction techniques for meteorological data of A2 scenario climate model output in Chao Phraya River Basin of Thailand

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Somchai Baimoung ◽  
Taikan Oki ◽  
Boonlert Archevarahuprok ◽  
Aphantree Yuttaphan ◽  
Manoon Pangpom
Keyword(s):  
River Basin ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Meteorological Data ◽  
Model Output ◽  
Climate Model Output ◽  
Chao Phraya River
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document