Abstract
This study compares the performance of three bias correction (BC) techniques in adjusting simulated precipitation estimates over Germany. The BC techniques are the multivariate quantile delta mapping (MQDM) where the grids are used as variables to incorporate the spatial dependency structure of precipitation in the bias correction; empirical quantile mapping (EQM) and, the linear scaling (LS) approach. Several metrics that include first to fourth moments and extremes characterized by the frequency of heavy wet days and return periods during boreal summer were applied to score the performance of the BC techniques. Our results indicate a strong dependency of the relative performances of the BC techniques on the choice of the regional climate model (RCM), the region, the season, and the metrics of interest. Hence, each BC technique has relative strengths and weaknesses. The LS approach performs well in adjusting the first moment but tends to fall short for higher moments and extreme precipitation during boreal summer. Depending on the season, the region and the RCM considered, there is a trade-off between the relative performances of the EQM and the MQDM in adjusting the simulated precipitation biases. However, the MQDM performs well across all considered metrics. Overall, the MQDM outperforms the EQM in improving the higher moments and in capturing the observed return level of extreme summer precipitation, averaged over Germany.
Highlights
Despite the higher horizontal resolution of regional climate models (RCMs) compared to general circulation models (GCMs), simulated precipitation from RCMs exhibits systematic biases relative to observations [1]
It can be seen that when ERA-Interim is used as driving data for the RCMs, the monthly precipitation sums are closer to the observed ones
How6 of ever, it can be seen that when ERA-Interim is used as driving data for the RCMs, the monthly precipitation sums are closer to the observed ones
Summary
Despite the higher horizontal resolution of regional climate models (RCMs) compared to general circulation models (GCMs), simulated precipitation from RCMs exhibits systematic biases relative to observations [1]. That replaces the empirical distribution with appropriate parametric distribution, and detrended quantile mapping [17] that incorporates projected changes in the mean of the bias-corrected variable. According to [21], the application of univariate quantile mapping at each grid point in the study region can alter the spatial variability of the simulated variable, which might modify the underlying spatial atmospheric modes and physics. In this respect, studies have examined the added value of multivariate BC techniques.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.