2020
DOI: 10.1007/s10584-020-02841-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Projected precipitation changes over China for global warming levels at 1.5 °C and 2 °C in an ensemble of regional climate simulations: impact of bias correction methods

Abstract: Four bias correction methods, i.e. Gamma Cumulative Distribution Function (GamCDF), Quantile-Quantile Adjustment (QQadj), Equidistant CDF Matching (EDCDF) and Transform CDF (CDF-t), are applied to five daily precipitation datasets over China produced by LMDZ4-regional that was nested into five global climate models (GCMs), BCC-CSM1-1m, CNRM-CM5, FGOALS-g2, IPSL-CM5A-MR and MPI-ESM-MR, respectively. A unified mathematical framework can be used to define the four bias correction methods, which helps understandin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The bias correction approach in this study is one of the uncertainties. Although we have analyzed different probability functions to fit the daily temperature and precipitation distributions and selected the most suitable function to project the frequency of extreme events, the experiments are still limited and it is very necessary to explore the optimal statistical downscaling method in further study, including the other probability functions, improved QM approaches, etc (Guo et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2022). On the other hand, the methods for defining different warming levels and the thresholds of very extreme or ultra‐extreme events also are factors of uncertainty.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The bias correction approach in this study is one of the uncertainties. Although we have analyzed different probability functions to fit the daily temperature and precipitation distributions and selected the most suitable function to project the frequency of extreme events, the experiments are still limited and it is very necessary to explore the optimal statistical downscaling method in further study, including the other probability functions, improved QM approaches, etc (Guo et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2022). On the other hand, the methods for defining different warming levels and the thresholds of very extreme or ultra‐extreme events also are factors of uncertainty.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Generally, the QM has a premise that the statistical relationship (i.e., CDF) between the observation and the simulation will remain stable in the future period (Yang et al., 2018). However, it ignores potential changes in the CDF of meteorological variables under the background of future climate change (Guo et al., 2020). Thus, improved QM methods have been emerging to remediate this issue in recent years.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The findings indicate a significant improvement in the results of regional climate models with respect to observations for wind speed, temperature, and precipitation distributions (Vrac et al 2012). The CDF-t method is an advancement of the quantile mapping (QM) bias correction method (Guo et al 2020). The QM method was shown to have the potential to reduce biases in palaeoclimate simulations (Beyer et al 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…When investigating future changes in such events, three methods have generally been undertaken. First, hydrology‐related indices (e.g., 95th percentile of rainday amounts (P95) and the standardized precipitation‐evapotranspiration index) using model simulations have been used to explore future changes in floods, droughts and extreme precipitation (Guo et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2021). Second, the changing nature of the RPs of extreme precipitation in climate projections, using the generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution, has been evaluated (Frei et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%