scholarly journals Multivariate bias corrections of climate simulations: which benefits for which losses?

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 537-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bastien François ◽  
Mathieu Vrac ◽  
Alex J. Cannon ◽  
Yoann Robin ◽  
Denis Allard
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Cross Validation ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Temporal Structure ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
Validation Method ◽  
Climate Simulations ◽  
Temporal Structures ◽  
Temporal Dependencies

Abstract. Climate models are the major tools to study the climate system and its evolutions in the future. However, climate simulations often present statistical biases and have to be corrected against observations before being used in impact assessments. Several bias correction (BC) methods have therefore been developed in the literature over the last 2 decades, in order to adjust simulations according to historical records and obtain climate projections with appropriate statistical attributes. Most of the existing and popular BC methods are univariate, i.e., correcting one physical variable and one location at a time and, thus, can fail to reconstruct inter-variable, spatial or temporal dependencies of the observations. These remaining biases in the correction can then affect the subsequent analyses. This has led to further research on multivariate aspects for statistical postprocessing BC methods. Recently, some multivariate bias correction (MBC) methods have been proposed, with different approaches to restore multidimensional dependencies. However, these methods are not yet fully apprehended by researchers and practitioners due to differences in their applicability and assumptions, therefore leading potentially to different results. This study is intended to intercompare four existing MBCs to provide end users with aid in choosing such methods for their applications. For evaluation and illustration purposes, these methods are applied to correct simulation outputs from one climate model through a cross-validation method, which allows for the assessment of inter-variable, spatial and temporal criteria. Then, a second cross-validation method is performed for assessing the ability of the MBC methods to account for the multidimensional evolutions of the climate model. Additionally, two reference datasets are used to assess the influence of their spatial resolution on (M)BC results. Most of the methods reasonably correct inter-variable and intersite correlations. However, none of them adjust correctly the temporal structure as they generate bias-corrected data with usually weak temporal dependencies compared to observations. Major differences are found concerning the applicability and stability of the methods in high-dimensional contexts and in their capability to reproduce the multidimensional changes in the model. Based on these conclusions, perspectives for MBC developments are suggested, such as methods to adjust not only multivariate correlations but also temporal structures and allowing multidimensional evolutions of the model to be accounted for in the correction.

scholarly journals Multivariate bias corrections of climate simulations: Which benefits for which losses?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bastien François ◽  
Mathieu Vrac ◽  
Alex J. Cannon ◽  
Yoann Robin ◽  
Denis Allard
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Temporal Structure ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
Dimensional Changes ◽  
Climate Simulations ◽  
Temporal Structures ◽  
Corrected Data ◽  
Temporal Dependencies

Abstract. Climate models are the major tools to estimate climate variables evolutions in the future. However, climate simulations often present statistical biases and have to be corrected against observations before being used in impact assessments. Several bias correction (BC) methods have therefore been developed in the literature over the last two decades, in order to adjust simulations according to historical records and obtain climate projections with appropriate statistical attributes. Most of the existing and popular BC methods are univariate, i.e., correcting one physical variable and one location at a time, and thus can fail to reconstruct inter-variable, spatial or temporal dependencies of the observations. These remaining biases in the correction can then affect the subsequent analyses. This has led to further research on multivariate aspects for statistical post-processing BC methods. Recently, some multivariate bias correction (MBC) methods have been proposed, with different approaches to restore multidimensional dependencies. However, these methods are not well apprehended yet by researchers and practitioners due to differences in their applicability and assumptions, therefore leading potentially to different results. This study is intended to intercompare four existing MBCs to provide end-users with aid in choosing such methods for their applications. For evaluation and illustration purposes, these methods are applied to correct simulation outputs from one climate model through a cross-validation methodology, which allows for the assessment of inter-variable, spatial and temporal criteria. Then, a second methodology is performed for assessing the ability of the MBC methods to account for the multi-dimensional evolutions of the climate model. Additionally, two reference datasets are used to assess the influence of their spatial resolution on (M)BC results. Most of the methods reasonably correct inter-variable and inter-site correlations. However, none of them adjust correctly the temporal structure as they generate bias corrected data with usually weak temporal dependencies compared to observations. Major differences are found concerning the applicability and stability of the methods in high-dimensional contexts, and in their capability to reproduce the multi-dimensional changes of the model. Based on these conclusions, perspectives for MBC developments are suggested, such as methods to adjust not only multivariate correlations but also temporal structures and allowing to account for multi-dimensional evolutions of the model in the correction.

Multivariate Bias Correction of Climate Simulations: an Intercomparison Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bastien François ◽  
Mathieu Vrac ◽  
Alex Cannon ◽  
Yoann Robin ◽  
Denis Allard
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Temporal Structure ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
Dimensional Changes ◽  
Climate Simulations ◽  
Temporal Structures ◽  
Intercomparison Study ◽  
Temporal Dependencies

<p>Climate models are the major tools to estimate climate variables evolutions in the future. However, climate simulations often present statistical biases and have to be corrected against observations before being used in impact assessments. Several bias correction (BC) methods have therefore been developed in the literature over the last two decades, in order to adjust simulations according to historical records and obtain climate projections with appropriate statistical attributes. Most of the existing and popular BC methods are univariate, i.e., correcting one physical variable and one location at a time, and thus can fail to reconstruct inter-variable, spatial or temporal dependencies of the observations. These remaining biases in the correction can then affect the subsequent analyses. This has led to further research on multivariate aspects for statistical postprocessing BC methods. Recently, some multivariate bias correction (MBC) methods have been proposed, with different approaches to restore multidimensional dependencies. However, these methods are not well apprehended yet by researchers and practitioners due to differences in their applicability and assumptions, therefore leading potentially to different results. This study is intended to intercompare four existing MBCs to provide end-users with aid in choosing such methods for their applications. For evaluation and illustration purposes, these methods are applied to correct simulation outputs from one climate model through a cross-validation methodology, which allows for the assessment of inter-variable, spatial and temporal criteria. Then, a second methodology is performed for assessing the ability of the MBC methods to account for the multi-dimensional evolutions of the climate model. Additionally, two reference datasets are used to assess the influence of their spatial resolution on (M)BC results. Most of the methods reasonably correct inter-variable and inter-site correlations. However, none of them adjust correctly the temporal structure as they generate bias corrected data with usually weak temporal dependencies compared to observations. Major differences are found concerning the applicability and stability of the methods in high-dimensional contexts, and in their capability to reproduce the multi-dimensional changes of the model. Based on those conclusions, perspectives for MBC developments are suggested, such as methods to adjust not only multivariate correlations but also temporal structures and allowing to account for multi-dimensional evolutions of the model in the correction.</p>

scholarly journals Cross-validation of bias-corrected climate simulations is misleading

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (9) ◽  
pp. 4867-4873 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Maraun ◽  
Martin Widmann
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Cross Validation ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Internal Variability ◽  
Validation Period ◽  
Climate Simulations ◽  
Free Running ◽  
The Difference

Abstract. We demonstrate both analytically and with a modelling example that cross-validation of free-running bias-corrected climate change simulations against observations is misleading. The underlying reasoning is as follows: a cross-validation can have in principle two outcomes. A negative (in the sense of not rejecting a null hypothesis), if the residual bias in the validation period after bias correction vanishes; and a positive, if the residual bias in the validation period after bias correction is large. It can be shown analytically that the residual bias depends solely on the difference between the simulated and observed change between calibration and validation periods. This change, however, depends mainly on the realizations of internal variability in the observations and climate model. As a consequence, the outcome of a cross-validation is also dominated by internal variability, and does not allow for any conclusion about the sensibility of a bias correction. In particular, a sensible bias correction may be rejected (false positive) and a non-sensible bias correction may be accepted (false negative). We therefore propose to avoid cross-validation when evaluating bias correction of free-running bias-corrected climate change simulations against observations. Instead, one should evaluate non-calibrated temporal, spatial and process-based aspects.

scholarly journals Selection of Bias Correction Methods to Assess the Impact of Climate Change on Flood Frequency Curves

Water ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 2266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrique Soriano ◽  
Luis Mediero ◽  
Carlos Garijo
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Control Period ◽  
Flood Frequency ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
The Future ◽  
Flood Quantiles ◽  
The Impact

Climate projections provided by EURO-CORDEX predict changes in annual maximum series of daily rainfall in the future in some areas of Spain because of climate change. Precipitation and temperature projections supplied by climate models do not usually fit exactly the statistical properties of the observed time series in the control period. Bias correction methods are used to reduce such errors. This paper seeks to find the most adequate bias correction techniques for temperature and precipitation projections that minimizes the errors between observations and climate model simulations in the control period. Errors in flood quantiles are considered to identify the best bias correction techniques, as flood quantiles are used for hydraulic infrastructure design and safety assessment. In addition, this study aims to understand how the expected changes in precipitation extremes and temperature will affect the catchment response in flood events in the future. Hydrological modelling is required to characterize rainfall-runoff processes adequately in a changing climate, in order to estimate flood changes expected in the future. Four catchments located in the central-western part of Spain have been selected as case studies. The HBV hydrological model has been calibrated in the four catchments by using the observed precipitation, temperature and streamflow data available on a daily scale. Rainfall has been identified as the most significant input to the model, in terms of its influence on flood response. The quantile mapping polynomial correction has been found to be the best bias correction method for precipitation. A general reduction in flood quantiles is expected in the future, smoothing the increases identified in precipitation quantiles by the reduction of soil moisture content in catchments, due to the expected increase in temperature and decrease in mean annual precipitations.

scholarly journals Multivariate—Intervariable, Spatial, and Temporal—Bias Correction*

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 218-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathieu Vrac ◽  
Petra Friederichs
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Temporal Structure ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Objective Evaluation ◽  
Temperature Fields ◽  
Empirical Copula ◽  
Regional Climate Model Output ◽  
Corrected Data ◽  
Temporal Dependencies

Abstract Statistical methods to bias correct global or regional climate model output are now common to get data closer to observations in distribution. However, most bias correction (BC) methods work for one variable and one location at a time and basically reproduce the temporal structure of the models. The intervariable, spatial, and temporal dependencies of the corrected data are usually poor compared to observations. Here, the authors propose a novel method for multivariate BC. The empirical copula–bias correction (EC–BC) combines a one-dimensional BC with a shuffling technique that restores an empirical multidimensional copula. Several BC methods are investigated and compared to high-resolution reference data over the French Mediterranean basin: notably, (i) a 1D BC method applied independently to precipitation and temperature fields, (ii) a recent conditional correction approach developed for producing correct two-dimensional intervariable structures, and (iii) the EC–BC method. Assessments are realized in terms of intervariable, spatial, and temporal dependencies, and an objective evaluation using the integrated quadratic distance (IQD) is presented. As expected, the 1D methods cannot produce correct multidimensional properties. The conditional technique appears efficient for intervariable properties but not for spatial and temporal dependencies. EC–BC provides realistic dependencies in all respects: intervariable, spatial, and temporal. The IQD results are clearly in favor of EC–BC. As many BC methods, EC–BC relies on a stationarity assumption and is only able to reproduce patterns inherited from historical data. However, because of its ease of coding, its speed of application, and the quality of its results, the EC–BC method is a very good candidate for all needs in multivariate bias correction.

scholarly journals Improving snowfall representation in climate simulations via statistical models informed by air temperature and total precipitation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Flavio Maria Emanuele Pons ◽  
Davide Faranda
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Accurate Estimation ◽  
Near Surface ◽  
Temperature And Precipitation ◽  
Climate Simulations ◽  
Threshold Temperatures ◽  
Out Of Sample

Abstract. The description and analysis of compound extremes affecting mid and high latitudes in the winter requires an accurate estimation of snowfall. Such variable is often missing for in-situ observations, and biased in climate model outputs, both in magnitude and number of events. While climate models can be adjusted using bias correction (BC), snowfall presents additional challenges compared to other variables, preventing from applying traditional univariate BC methods. We extend the existing literature on the estimation of the snowfall fraction from near-surface temperature, which usually involves binary thresholds or fitting parametric nonlinear functions. We show that, combining breakpoint search algorithms to define threshold temperatures and segmented regression models, it is possible to obtain accurate out-of-sample estimates of snowfall over Europe in ERA5 reanalysis, and to perform effective BC on the IPSL-WRF high resolution EURO-CORDEX climate model only relying on bias adjusted temperature and precipitation. This method offers a feasible way to reconstruct or adjust snowfall observations without requiring multivariate or conditional bias correction and stochastic generation of unobserved events.

scholarly journals Climate Change Impact Assessment for Aji Basin Using Statistical Downscaling and Bias Correction of Climate Model Outputs

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 670-678 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. S Vithlani ◽  
H. D Rank
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Climate Extremes ◽  
Global Climate Models ◽  
Climate Indices ◽  
Climate Projections

For the future projections Global climate models (GCMs) enable development of climate projections and relate greenhouse gas forcing to future potential climate states. When focusing it on smaller scales it exhibit some limitations to overcome this problem, regional climate models (RCMs) and other downscaling methods have been developed. To ensure statistics of the downscaled output matched the corresponding statistics of the observed data, bias correction was used. Quantify future changes of climate extremes were analyzed, based on these downscaled data from two RCMs grid points. Subset of indices and models, results of bias corrected model output and raw for the present day climate were compared with observation, which demonstrated that bias correction is important for RCM outputs. Bias correction directed agreements of extreme climate indices for future climate it does not correct for lag inverse autocorrelation and fraction of wet and dry days. But, it was observed that adjusting both the biases in the mean and variability, relatively simple non-linear correction, leads to better reproduction of observed extreme daily and multi-daily precipitation amounts. Due to climate change temperature and precipitation will increased day by day.

scholarly journals Cross-validation of bias-corrected climate simulations is misleading

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Maraun ◽  
Martin Widmann
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Cross Validation ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Internal Variability ◽  
Validation Period ◽  
Climate Simulations ◽  
Free Running ◽  
The Difference

Abstract. We demonstrate both analytically and with a modelling example that cross-validation of free running bias-corrected climate change simulations against observations is misleading. The underlying reasoning is as follows: a cross-validation can have in principle two outcomes. A negative (in the sense of not rejecting a Null hypothesis), if the residual bias in the validation period after bias correction vanishes; and a positive, if the residual bias in the validation period after bias correction is large. It can be shown analytically that the residual bias depends solely on the difference between the simulated and observed change between calibration and validation period. These changes, however, depend mainly on the realisations of internal variability in the observations and climate model. As a consequence, also the outcome of a cross-validation is dominated by internal variability, and does not allow for any conclusion about the sensibility of a bias correction. In particular, a sensible bias correction may be rejected (false positive) and a non-sensible bias correction may be accepted (false negative). We therefore propose to avoid cross-validation when evaluating bias correction of free running bias-corrected climate change simulations against observations. Instead, one should evaluate temporal, spatial and process-based aspects.

scholarly journals On the need for bias correction in regional climate scenarios to assess climate change impacts on river runoff

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 1189-1204 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. Muerth ◽  
B. Gauvin St-Denis ◽  
S. Ricard ◽  
J. A. Velázquez ◽  
J. Schmid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
River Runoff ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Regional Climate Models ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
Hydrological Models

Abstract. In climate change impact research, the assessment of future river runoff as well as the catchment-scale water balance is impeded by different sources of modeling uncertainty. Some research has already been done in order to quantify the uncertainty of climate projections originating from the climate models and the downscaling techniques, as well as from the internal variability evaluated from climate model member ensembles. Yet, the use of hydrological models adds another layer of uncertainty. Within the QBic3 project (Québec–Bavarian International Collaboration on Climate Change), the relative contributions to the overall uncertainty from the whole model chain (from global climate models to water management models) are investigated using an ensemble of multiple climate and hydrological models. Although there are many options to downscale global climate projections to the regional scale, recent impact studies tend to use regional climate models (RCMs). One reason for that is that the physical coherence between atmospheric and land-surface variables is preserved. The coherence between temperature and precipitation is of particular interest in hydrology. However, the regional climate model outputs often are biased compared to the observed climatology of a given region. Therefore, biases in those outputs are often corrected to facilitate the reproduction of historic runoff conditions when used in hydrological models, even if those corrections alter the relationship between temperature and precipitation. So, as bias correction may affect the consistency between RCM output variables, the use of correction techniques and even the use of (biased) climate model data itself is sometimes disputed among scientists. For these reasons, the effect of bias correction on simulated runoff regimes and the relative change in selected runoff indicators is explored. If it affects the conclusion of climate change analysis in hydrology, we should consider it as a source of uncertainty. If not, the application of bias correction methods is either unnecessary to obtain the change signal in hydro-climatic projections, or safe to use for the production of present and future river runoff scenarios as it does not alter the change signal. The results of the present paper highlight the analysis of daily runoff simulated with four different hydrological models in two natural-flow catchments, driven by different regional climate models for a reference and a future period. As expected, bias correction of climate model outputs is important for the reproduction of the runoff regime of the past, regardless of the hydrological model used. Then again, its impact on the relative change of flow indicators between reference and future periods is weak for most indicators, with the exception of the timing of the spring flood peak. Still, our results indicate that the impact of bias correction on runoff indicators increases with bias in the climate simulations.

scholarly journals Trends in projections of standardized precipitation indices in a future climate in Poland

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 1947-1969 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marzena Osuch ◽  
Renata J. Romanowicz ◽  
Deborah Lawrence ◽  
Wai K. Wong
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Global Climate Model ◽  
Standardized Precipitation Index ◽  
Future Climate ◽  
Future Climate Change ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
Monthly Precipitation

Abstract. Possible future climate change effects on dryness conditions in Poland are estimated for six climate projections using the standardized precipitation index (SPI). The time series of precipitation represent six different climate model runs under the selected emission scenario for the period 1971–2099. Monthly precipitation values were used to estimate the SPI for multiple timescales (1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) for a spatial resolution of 25 km for the whole country. Trends in the SPI were analysed using the Mann–Kendall test with Sen's slope estimator for each grid cell for each climate model projection and aggregation scale, and results obtained for uncorrected precipitation and bias corrected precipitation were compared. Bias correction was achieved using a distribution-based quantile mapping (QM) method in which the climate model precipitation series were adjusted relative to gridded precipitation data for Poland. The results show that the spatial pattern of the trend depends on the climate model, the timescale considered and on the bias correction. The effect of change on the projected trend due to bias correction is small compared to the variability among climate models. We also summarize the mechanisms underlying the influence of bias correction on trends in precipitation and the SPI using a simple example of a linear bias correction procedure. In both cases, the bias correction by QM does not change the direction of changes but can change the slope of trend, and the influence of bias correction on SPI is much reduced. We also have noticed that the results for the same global climate model, driving different regional climate model, are characterized by a similar pattern of changes, although this behaviour is not seen at all timescales and seasons.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document