2013
DOI: 10.1002/wrcr.20331
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Finding appropriate bias correction methods in downscaling precipitation for hydrologic impact studies over North America

Abstract: [1] This work compares the performance of six bias correction methods for hydrological modeling over 10 North American river basins. Four regional climate model (RCM) simulations driven by reanalysis data taken from the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program intercomparison project are used to evaluate the sensitivity of bias correction methods to climate models. The hydrological impacts of bias correction methods are assessed through the comparison of streamflows simulated by a lumped empir… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

11
291
0
2

Year Published

2014
2014
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 405 publications
(315 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
(68 reference statements)
11
291
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Haerter et al (2011 found that the conditions on climate model data to make the application of statistical bias correction schemes reasonable are that a realistic representation of the physical processes involved must be ensured; and that the quantitative discrepancies between the modelled and observed probability density function of the quantity at hand must be constant in time. Similarly, Chen et al (2013) emphasise the impossibility any bias correction method being successful if there is no coherence between simulated and observed precipitation. The WRF data used in this study show limitations in fulfilling both these conditions, which leads to the post-processed precipitation being no more skilful than the sample climatology (as shown by negative values of SS Clim ) and providing only a modest improvement in comparison to the zero-precipitation forecast (as shown by most values of SS0 being positive, albeit low).…”
Section: Evaluating Precipitation Forecasts From the Wrf Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Haerter et al (2011 found that the conditions on climate model data to make the application of statistical bias correction schemes reasonable are that a realistic representation of the physical processes involved must be ensured; and that the quantitative discrepancies between the modelled and observed probability density function of the quantity at hand must be constant in time. Similarly, Chen et al (2013) emphasise the impossibility any bias correction method being successful if there is no coherence between simulated and observed precipitation. The WRF data used in this study show limitations in fulfilling both these conditions, which leads to the post-processed precipitation being no more skilful than the sample climatology (as shown by negative values of SS Clim ) and providing only a modest improvement in comparison to the zero-precipitation forecast (as shown by most values of SS0 being positive, albeit low).…”
Section: Evaluating Precipitation Forecasts From the Wrf Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This approach originates from the empirical transformation (Themeßl et al, 2012) and was successfully implemented in the bias correction of RCM-simulated precipitation (Sun et al, 2011;Themeßl et al, 2012;J. Chen et al, 2013;Wilcke et al, 2013).…”
Section: Quantile Mapping (Qm) Of Precipitationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both methods have been successfully used by a number of studies (e.g. Boé et al, 2007;Chen et al, 2013;Gutjahr and Heinemann, 2013) and were selected here to allow for a direct comparison between a simple correction method based on additive or multiplicative correction terms (LT) and the more complex distributionbased QM approach.…”
Section: The Model Cascadementioning
confidence: 99%