scholarly journals Bias correction can modify climate model-simulated precipitation changes without adverse affect on the ensemble mean

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 11585-11611
Author(s):  
E. P. Maurer ◽  
D. W. Pierce
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
General Circulation ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
General Circulation Models ◽  
Quantile Mapping ◽  
Mapping Bias ◽  
Simulated Precipitation ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Precipitation Changes ◽  
Precipitation Trends

Abstract. When applied to remove climate model biases in precipitation, quantile mapping can in some settings modify the simulated trends. This has important implications when the precipitation will be used to drive an impacts model that is sensitive to changes in precipitation. We use daily precipitation output from 12 general circulation models (GCMs) over the conterminous United States interpolated to a common 1° grid, and gridded observations aggregated to the same scale, to compare precipitation differences before and after quantile mapping bias correction. The change in seasonal mean (winter, DJF, and summer, JJA) precipitation between different 30-yr historical periods is compared to examine (1) the consensus among GCMs as to whether the bias correction tends to amplify or diminish their simulated precipitation trends, and (2) whether the modification of the change in precipitation tends to improve or degrade the correspondence to observed changes in precipitation for the same periods. In some cases, for a particular GCM, the trend modification can be as large as the original simulated change, though the areas where this occurs varies among GCMs so the ensemble median shows smaller trend modification. In specific locations and seasons the trend modification by quantile mapping improves correspondence with observed trends, and in others it degrades it. In the majority of the domain the ensemble median is for little effect on the correspondence of simulated precipitation trends with observed. This highlights the need to use an ensemble of GCMs rather than relying on a small number of models to estimate impacts.

scholarly journals Bias correction can modify climate model simulated precipitation changes without adverse effect on the ensemble mean

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 915-925 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. P. Maurer ◽  
D. W. Pierce
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
General Circulation ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
General Circulation Models ◽  
Quantile Mapping ◽  
Mapping Bias ◽  
Simulated Precipitation ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Synthetic Precipitation ◽  
Precipitation Changes

Abstract. When applied to remove climate model biases in precipitation, quantile mapping can in some settings modify the simulated difference in mean precipitation between two eras. This has important implications when the precipitation is used to drive an impacts model that is sensitive to changes in precipitation. The tendency of quantile mapping to alter model-predicted changes is demonstrated using synthetic precipitation distributions and elucidated with a simple theoretical analysis, which shows that the alteration of model-predicted changes can be controlled by the ratio of model to observed variance. To further evaluate the effects of quantile mapping in a more realistic setting, we use daily precipitation output from 11 atmospheric general circulation models (AGCMs), forced by observed sea surface temperatures, over the conterminous United States to compare precipitation differences before and after quantile mapping bias correction. The effectiveness of the bias correction is not assessed, only its effect on precipitation differences. The change in seasonal mean (winter, DJF, and summer, JJA) precipitation between two historical periods is compared to examine whether the bias correction tends to amplify or diminish an AGCM's simulated precipitation change. In some cases the trend modification can be as large as the original simulated change, though the areas where this occurs varies among AGCMs so the ensemble median shows smaller trend modification. Results show that quantile mapping improves the correspondence with observed changes in some locations and degrades it in others. While not representative of a future where natural precipitation variability is much smaller than that due to external forcing, these results suggest that at least for the next several decades the influence of quantile mapping on seasonal precipitation trends does not systematically degrade projected differences.

scholarly journals Bias correction of temperature and precipitation over China for RCM simulations using the QM and QDM methods

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yao Tong ◽  
Xuejie Gao ◽  
Zhenyu Han ◽  
Yaqi Xu ◽  
Ying Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
General Circulation ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
General Circulation Models ◽  
Grid Spacing ◽  
Quantile Mapping ◽  
Temperature And Precipitation ◽  
June July August ◽  
June July

Abstract Two different bias correction methods, the quantile mapping (QM) and quantile delta mapping (QDM), are applied to simulated daily temperature and precipitation over China from a set of 21st century regional climate model (the ICTP RegCM4) projections. The RegCM4 is driven by five different general circulation models (GCMs) under the representative concentration pathway RCP4.5 at a grid spacing of 25 km using the CORDEX East Asia domain. The focus is on mean temperature and precipitation in December–January–February (DJF) and June–July–August (JJA). The impacts of the two methods on the present day biases and future change signals are investigated. Results show that both the QM and QDM methods are effective in removing the systematic model biases during the validation period. For the future changes, the QDM preserves the temperature change signals well, in both magnitude and spatial distribution, while the QM artificially modifies the change signal by decreasing the warming and modifying the patterns of change. For precipitation, both methods preserve the change signals well but they produce greater magnitude of the projected increase, especially the QDM. We also show that the effects of bias correction are variable- and season-dependent. Our results show that different bias correction methods can affect in different way the simulated change signals, and therefore care has to be taken in carrying out the bias correction process.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Quantile Mapping Bias Correction on Rossby Centre Regional Climate Models for Precipitation Analysis over Kenya, East Africa

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Ayugi ◽  
Guirong Tan ◽  
Rouyun Niu ◽  
Hassen Babaousmail ◽  
Moses Ojara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
East Africa ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Regional Climate Models ◽  
Intermediate Step ◽  
Quantile Mapping ◽  
Mapping Bias

Accurate assessment and projections of extreme climate events requires the use of climate datasets with no or minimal error. This study uses quantile mapping bias correction (QMBC) method to correct the bias of five Regional Climate Models (RCMs) from the latest output of Rossby Climate Model Center (RCA4) over Kenya, East Africa. The outputs were validated using various scalar metrics such as Root Mean Square Difference (RMSD), Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and mean Bias. The study found that the QMBC algorithm demonstrate varying performance among the models in the study domain. The results show that most of the models exhibit significant improvement after corrections at seasonal and annual timescales. Specifically, the European community Earth-System (EC-EARTH) and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) models depict exemplary improvement as compared to other models. On the contrary, the Institute Pierre Simon Laplace Model CM5A-MR (IPSL-CM5A-MR) model show little improvement across various timescales (i.e. March-April-May (MAM) and October-November-December (OND)). The projections forced with bias corrected historical simulations tallied observed values demonstrate satisfactory simulations as compared to the uncorrected RCMs output models. This study has demonstrated that using QMBC on outputs from RCA4 is an important intermediate step to improve climate data prior to performing any regional impact analysis. The corrected models can be used for projections of drought and flood extreme events over the study area. This study analysis is crucial from the sustainable planning for adaptation and mitigation of climate change and disaster risk reduction perspective.

scholarly journals Projecting Health Impacts of Future Temperature: A Comparison of Quantile-Mapping Bias-Correction Methods

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1992
Author(s):  
Weijia Qian ◽  
Howard H. Chang
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Warm Season ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Regional Climate Models ◽  
Health Impact ◽  
Quantile Mapping ◽  
Ed Visits

Health impact assessments of future environmental exposures are routinely conducted to quantify population burdens associated with the changing climate. It is well-recognized that simulations from climate models need to be bias-corrected against observations to estimate future exposures. Quantile mapping (QM) is a technique that has gained popularity in climate science because of its focus on bias-correcting the entire exposure distribution. Even though improved bias-correction at the extreme tails of exposure may be particularly important for estimating health burdens, the application of QM in health impact projection has been limited. In this paper we describe and apply five QM methods to estimate excess emergency department (ED) visits due to projected changes in warm-season minimum temperature in Atlanta, USA. We utilized temperature projections from an ensemble of regional climate models in the North American-Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (NA-CORDEX). Across QM methods, we estimated consistent increase in ED visits across climate model ensemble under RCP 8.5 during the period 2050 to 2099. We found that QM methods can significantly reduce between-model variation in health impact projections (50–70% decreases in between-model standard deviation). Particularly, the quantile delta mapping approach had the largest reduction and is recommended also because of its ability to preserve model-projected absolute temporal changes in quantiles.

scholarly journals Interhemispheric differences of mesosphere/lower thermosphere winds and tides investigated from three whole atmosphere models and meteor radar observations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunter Stober ◽  
Ales Kuchar ◽  
Dimitry Pokhotelov ◽  
Huixin Liu ◽  
Han-Li Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Circulation ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Lower Thermosphere ◽  
Winter Season ◽  
General Circulation Models ◽  
Meteor Radar ◽  
Radar Observations ◽  
Seasonal Characteristics

Abstract. Long-term and continuous observations of mesospheric/lower thermospheric winds are rare, but they are important to investigate climatological changes at these altitudes on time scales of several years, covering a solar cycle and longer. Such long time series are a natural heritage of the mesosphere/lower thermosphere climate, and they are valuable to compare climate models or long term runs of general circulation models (GCMs). Here we present a climatological comparison of wind observations from six meteor radars at two conjugate latitudes to validate the corresponding mean winds and atmospheric diurnal and semidiurnal tides from three GCMs, namely Ground-to-Topside Model of Atmosphere and Ionosphere for Aeronomy (GAIA), Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Extension (Specified Dynamics) (WACCM-X(SD)) and Upper Atmosphere ICOsahedral Non-hydrostatic (UA-ICON) model. Our results indicate that there are interhemispheric differences in the seasonal characteristics of the diurnal and semidiurnal tide. There also are some differences in the mean wind climatologies of the models and the observations. Our results indicate that GAIA shows a reasonable agreement with the meteor radar observations during the winter season, whereas WACCM-X(SD) shows a better agreement with the radars for the hemispheric zonal summer wind reversal, which is more consistent with the meteor radar observations. The free running UA-ICON tends to show similar winds and tides compared to WACCM-X(SD).

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document