No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This paper examines the spatial error structures of eight precipitation estimates derived from four different satellite retrieval algorithms including TRMM Multi-satellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA), Climate Prediction Center morphing technique (CMORPH), Global Satellite Mapping of Precipitation (GSMaP) and Precipitation Estimation from Remotely Sensed Information using Artificial Neural Networks (PERSIANN). All the original satellite and bias-corrected products of each algorithm (3B42RTV7 and 3B42V7, CMORPH_RAW and CMORPH_CRT, GSMaP_MVK and GSMaP_Gauge, PERSIANN_RAW and PERSIANN_CDR) are evaluated against The analyses show that all products except PERSIANN exhibit overestimation over Aral Sea and its surrounding areas. The bias-correction improves the quality of the original satellite TMPA products and GSMaP significantly but slightly in CMORPH and PERSIANN over Central Asia. 3B42RTV7 overestimates precipitation significantly with large Relative Bias (RB) (128.17%) while GSMaP_Gauge shows consistent high correlation coefficient (CC) (>0.8) but RB fluctuates between −57.95% and 112.63%. The PERSIANN_CDR outperforms other products in winter with the highest CC (0.67). Both the satellite-only and gauge adjusted products have particularly poor performance in detecting rainfall events in terms of lower POD (less than 65%), CSI (less than 45%) and relatively high FAR (more than 35%).

No abstract

Abstract:The systemic biases of Regional Climate Models (RCMs) impede their application in regional hydrological climate-change effects analysis and lead to errors. As a consequence, bias correction has become a necessary prerequisite for the study of climate change. This paper compares the performance of available bias correction methods that focus on the performance of precipitation and temperature projections. The hydrological effects of these correction methods are evaluated by the modelled discharges of the Kaidu River Basin. The results show that all used methods improve the performance of the original RCM precipitation and temperature simulations across a number of levels. The corrected results obtained by precipitation correction methods demonstrate larger diversities than those produced by the temperature correction methods. The performance of hydrological modelling is highly influenced by the choice of precipitation correction methods. Furthermore, no substantial differences can be identified from the results of the temperature-corrected methods. The biases from input data are often greater from the works of hydrological modelling. The suitability of these approaches depends upon the regional context and the RCM model, while their application procedure and a number of results can be adapted from region to region.