2017
DOI: 10.1007/s00477-017-1498-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of number of realizations on the suitability of simulated weather data for hydrologic and environmental applications

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These 100 realizations per emission scenario were used in the WEAP model for computing water fluxes which were averaged afterwards. Although Guo et al [36] concluded that 25 realizations are sufficient and there is no significant difference between 25 and 100 realizations, we followed the recommendation of the LARS-WG manual.…”
Section: Climate Changementioning
confidence: 99%
“…These 100 realizations per emission scenario were used in the WEAP model for computing water fluxes which were averaged afterwards. Although Guo et al [36] concluded that 25 realizations are sufficient and there is no significant difference between 25 and 100 realizations, we followed the recommendation of the LARS-WG manual.…”
Section: Climate Changementioning
confidence: 99%
“…One method was a conventional one that included power transformation [57,58] and variance scaling of temperature [59]. The other bias correction method was novel and based on conclusions and discussions from previous studies [27,60] where Stochastic Weather Generators (SWGs) performed better at simulating greater depths of precipitation. We postulated that SWGs could be used to redistribute the precipitation and simulate greater daily precipitation depths.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One method was a conventional one that included power transformation (Leander and Buishand, 2007;Leander et al, 2008) and variance scaling of temperature (Chen et al, 2011a;Chen et al, 2011b). The other bias-correction method was novel and based on conclusions and discussions from previous studies (Guo et al, 2017;Mehan et al, 2017a), where Stochastic Weather Generators (SWGs) performed better at simulating greater depths of precipitation. We postulated that SWGs could 20 be used to redistribute the precipitation and simulate greater daily precipitation depths, which otherwise would be distributed to dry days or days with lower or no precipitation, adversely affecting the simulation outputs from crop growth and hydrologic models.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The weather generators were used in their default state without changing their parametrization for the historic period for analysis. Twenty-five different realizations (Guo et al, 2017) were generated for all nine GCMs at the three stations, to capture the variability and correct for bias or reduce error. Since the interest was to redistribute the precipitation to capture the high magnitude precipitation events, the extreme percentiles (75th and 90th) from the 25 different realizations were used for precipitation 30 depth comparisons and means were used for temperature comparisons.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%