Does applying quantile mapping to subsamples improve the bias correction of daily precipitation?

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 1623-1633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philipp Reiter ◽  
Oliver Gutjahr ◽  
Lukas Schefczyk ◽  
Günther Heinemann ◽  
Markus Casper
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Daily Precipitation ◽  
Quantile Mapping

scholarly journals Bias Correction, Quantile Mapping, and Downscaling: Revisiting the Inflation Issue

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 2137-2143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Maraun
Keyword(s):  
Regional Climate Model ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Daily Precipitation ◽  
Temporal Structure ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Quantile Mapping ◽  
Model Simulations ◽  
Scale Mismatch ◽  
Climate Model Simulations

Abstract Quantile mapping is routinely applied to correct biases of regional climate model simulations compared to observational data. If the observations are of similar resolution as the regional climate model, quantile mapping is a feasible approach. However, if the observations are of much higher resolution, quantile mapping also attempts to bridge this scale mismatch. Here, it is shown for daily precipitation that such quantile mapping–based downscaling is not feasible but introduces similar problems as inflation of perfect prognosis (“prog”) downscaling: the spatial and temporal structure of the corrected time series is misrepresented, the drizzle effect for area means is overcorrected, area-mean extremes are overestimated, and trends are affected. To overcome these problems, stochastic bias correction is required.

scholarly journals Exploring the Long-Term Reanalysis of Precipitation and the Contribution of Bias Correction to the Reduction of Uncertainty over South Korea: A Composite Gamma-Pareto Distribution Approach to the Bias Correction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong-Ik Kim ◽  
Hyun-Han Kwon ◽  
Dawei Han
Keyword(s):  
South Korea ◽  
Gamma Distribution ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Pareto Distribution ◽  
Daily Precipitation ◽  
Regional Scale ◽  
Systematic Bias ◽  
Quantile Mapping ◽  
Contour Map

Abstract. The long-term record of precipitation data plays an important role in climate impact studies. The local observation is often considered to be the truth in regional-scale analyses, but the long-term meteorological record for a given catchment is very limited. Recently, ERA-20c, a century-long reanalysis of the data has been published by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), which includes daily precipitation over the whole 20th century with high spatial resolution of 0.125° × 0.125°. Preliminary studies have already indicated that the ERA-20c can reproduce the mean reasonably well, but rainfall intensity was underestimated and wet-day frequency was overestimated. The primary focus of this study was to expand our sample size significantly for extreme rainfall analysis. Thus, we first adopted a relatively simple approach to adjust the frequency of wet-days by imposing an optimal lower threshold. We found that the systematic errors are fairly well captured by the conventional quantile mapping method with a gamma distribution, but the extremes in daily precipitation are still somewhat underestimated. In such a context, we introduced a quantile mapping approach based on a composite distribution of a generalized Pareto distribution for the upper tail (e.g. 95th and 99th percentile), and a gamma distribution for the interior part of the distribution. The proposed composite distributions provide a significant reduction of the biases compared with that of the conventional method for the extremes. We suggest a new interpolation method based on the parameter contour map for bias correction in ungauged catchments. The strength of this approach is that one can easily produce the bias-corrected daily precipitation in ungauged or poorly gauged catchments. A comparison of the corrected datasets using contour maps shows that the proposed modelling scheme can reliably reduce the systematic bias at a grid point that is not used in the process of parameter estimation. In particular, the contour map with the 99th percentile shows a more accurate representation of the observed daily rainfall than other combinations. The findings in this study suggest that the proposed approach can provide a useful alternative to readers who consider the bias correction of a regional-scale modelled data with a limited network of rain gauges. Although the study has been carried out in South Korea, the methodology has its potential to be applied in other parts of the world.

scholarly journals Projecting Health Impacts of Future Temperature: A Comparison of Quantile-Mapping Bias-Correction Methods

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1992
Author(s):  
Weijia Qian ◽  
Howard H. Chang
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Warm Season ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Regional Climate Models ◽  
Health Impact ◽  
Quantile Mapping ◽  
Ed Visits

Health impact assessments of future environmental exposures are routinely conducted to quantify population burdens associated with the changing climate. It is well-recognized that simulations from climate models need to be bias-corrected against observations to estimate future exposures. Quantile mapping (QM) is a technique that has gained popularity in climate science because of its focus on bias-correcting the entire exposure distribution. Even though improved bias-correction at the extreme tails of exposure may be particularly important for estimating health burdens, the application of QM in health impact projection has been limited. In this paper we describe and apply five QM methods to estimate excess emergency department (ED) visits due to projected changes in warm-season minimum temperature in Atlanta, USA. We utilized temperature projections from an ensemble of regional climate models in the North American-Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (NA-CORDEX). Across QM methods, we estimated consistent increase in ED visits across climate model ensemble under RCP 8.5 during the period 2050 to 2099. We found that QM methods can significantly reduce between-model variation in health impact projections (50–70% decreases in between-model standard deviation). Particularly, the quantile delta mapping approach had the largest reduction and is recommended also because of its ability to preserve model-projected absolute temporal changes in quantiles.

scholarly journals Errors in climate model daily precipitation and temperature output: time invariance and implications for bias correction

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 2147-2159 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. P. Maurer ◽  
T. Das ◽  
D. R. Cayan
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
General Circulation ◽  
Daily Precipitation ◽  
Extreme Values ◽  
Circulation Model ◽  
The United States ◽  
Historical Period ◽  
Late 20Th Century ◽  
Precipitation And Temperature ◽  
Gcm Biases

Abstract. When correcting for biases in general circulation model (GCM) output, for example when statistically downscaling for regional and local impacts studies, a common assumption is that the GCM biases can be characterized by comparing model simulations and observations for a historical period. We demonstrate some complications in this assumption, with GCM biases varying between mean and extreme values and for different sets of historical years. Daily precipitation and maximum and minimum temperature from late 20th century simulations by four GCMs over the United States were compared to gridded observations. Using random years from the historical record we select a "base" set and a 10 yr independent "projected" set. We compare differences in biases between these sets at median and extreme percentiles. On average a base set with as few as 4 randomly-selected years is often adequate to characterize the biases in daily GCM precipitation and temperature, at both median and extreme values; 12 yr provided higher confidence that bias correction would be successful. This suggests that some of the GCM bias is time invariant. When characterizing bias with a set of consecutive years, the set must be long enough to accommodate regional low frequency variability, since the bias also exhibits this variability. Newer climate models included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fifth assessment will allow extending this study for a longer observational period and to finer scales.

scholarly journals Development and comparative evaluation of a stochastic analog method to downscale daily GCM precipitation

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (11) ◽  
pp. 4481-4502 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Hwang ◽  
W. D. Graham
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Daily Precipitation ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Analog Method ◽  
Dry Spell ◽  
Spatial Disaggregation ◽  
Dry Seasons ◽  
Stochastic Analog ◽  
Wet And Dry Seasons

Abstract. There are a number of statistical techniques that downscale coarse climate information from general circulation models (GCMs). However, many of them do not reproduce the small-scale spatial variability of precipitation exhibited by the observed meteorological data, which is an important factor for predicting hydrologic response to climatic forcing. In this study a new downscaling technique (Bias-Correction and Stochastic Analog method; BCSA) was developed to produce stochastic realizations of bias-corrected daily GCM precipitation fields that preserve both the spatial autocorrelation structure of observed daily precipitation sequences and the observed temporal frequency distribution of daily rainfall over space. We used the BCSA method to downscale 4 different daily GCM precipitation predictions from 1961 to 1999 over the state of Florida, and compared the skill of the method to results obtained with the commonly used bias-correction and spatial disaggregation (BCSD) approach, a modified version of BCSD which reverses the order of spatial disaggregation and bias-correction (SDBC), and the bias-correction and constructed analog (BCCA) method. Spatial and temporal statistics, transition probabilities, wet/dry spell lengths, spatial correlation indices, and variograms for wet (June through September) and dry (October through May) seasons were calculated for each method. Results showed that (1) BCCA underestimated mean daily precipitation for both wet and dry seasons while the BCSD, SDBC and BCSA methods accurately reproduced these characteristics, (2) the BCSD and BCCA methods underestimated temporal variability of daily precipitation and thus did not reproduce daily precipitation standard deviations, transition probabilities or wet/dry spell lengths as well as the SDBC and BCSA methods, and (3) the BCSD, BCCA and SDBC methods underestimated spatial variability in daily precipitation resulting in underprediction of spatial variance and overprediction of spatial correlation, whereas the new stochastic technique (BCSA) replicated observed spatial statistics for both the wet and dry seasons. This study underscores the need to carefully select a downscaling method that reproduces all precipitation characteristics important for the hydrologic system under consideration if local hydrologic impacts of climate variability and change are going to be reasonably predicted. For low-relief, rainfall-dominated watersheds, where reproducing small-scale spatiotemporal precipitation variability is important, the BCSA method is recommended for use over the BCSD, BCCA, or SDBC methods.

scholarly journals Constructing High-Resolution, Bias-Corrected Climate Products: A Comparison of Methods

2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-475
Author(s):  
Maike F. Holthuijzen ◽  
Brian Beckage ◽  
Patrick J. Clemins ◽  
Dave Higdon ◽  
Jonathan M. Winter
Keyword(s):  
High Resolution ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Maximum Temperature ◽  
Daily Maximum Temperature ◽  
Model Output ◽  
Quantile Mapping ◽  
Station Data ◽  
Climate Model Output ◽  
Mapping Techniques

AbstractHigh-resolution, bias-corrected climate data are necessary for climate impact studies at local scales. Gridded historical data are convenient for bias correction but may contain biases resulting from interpolation. Long-term, quality-controlled station data are generally superior climatological measurements, but because the distribution of climate stations is irregular, station data are challenging to incorporate into downscaling and bias-correction approaches. Here, we compared six novel methods for constructing full-coverage, high-resolution, bias-corrected climate products using daily maximum temperature simulations from a regional climate model (RCM). Only station data were used for bias correction. We quantified performance of the six methods with the root-mean-square-error (RMSE) and Perkins skill score (PSS) and used two ANOVA models to analyze how performance varied among methods. We validated the six methods using two calibration periods of observed data (1980–89 and 1980–2014) and two testing sets of RCM data (1990–2014 and 1980–2014). RMSE for all methods varied throughout the year and was larger in cold months, whereas PSS was more consistent. Quantile-mapping bias-correction techniques substantially improved PSS, while simple linear transfer functions performed best in improving RMSE. For the 1980–89 calibration period, simple quantile-mapping techniques outperformed empirical quantile mapping (EQM) in improving PSS. When calibration and testing time periods were equivalent, EQM resulted in the largest improvements in PSS. No one method performed best in both RMSE and PSS. Our results indicate that simple quantile-mapping techniques are less prone to overfitting than EQM and are suitable for processing future climate model output, whereas EQM is ideal for bias correcting historical climate model output.

Impact of bias correction techniques on an ensemble of seasonal discharge forecast for the Danube upstream of Vienna

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignacio Martin Santos ◽  
Mathew Herrnegger ◽  
Hubert Holzmann
Keyword(s):  
Bias Correction ◽  
Hydrological Model ◽  
Systematic Errors ◽  
Seasonal Forecasts ◽  
Scaling Factors ◽  
Quantile Mapping ◽  
Forecasting System ◽  
Mapping Techniques ◽  
Seasonal Discharge

<p>The skill of seasonal hydro-meteorological forecasts with a lead time of up to six months is currently limited, since they frequently exhibit random but also systematic errors. Bias correction algorithms can be applied and provide an effective approach in removing historical biases relative to observations. Systematic errors in hydrology model outputs can be consequence of different sources: i) errors in meteorological data used as input data, ii) errors in the hydrological model response to climate forcings, iii) unknown/unobservable internal states and iv) errors in the model parameterizations, also due to unresolved subgrid scale variability.</p><p>Normally, bias correction techniques are used to correct meteorological, e.g. precipitation data, provided by climate models. Only few studies are available applying these techniques to hydrological model outputs. Standard bias correction techniques used in literature can be classified into scaling-, and distributional-based methods. The former consists of using multiplicative or additive scaling factors to correct the modeled simulations, while the later methods are quantile mapping techniques that fit the distribution of the simulation to fit to the observations. In this study, the impact of different bias correction techniques on the seasonal discharge forecasts skill is assessed.</p><p>As a case study, a seasonal discharge forecasting system developed for the Danube basin upstream of Vienna, is used. The studied basin covers an area of around 100 000 km<sup>2</sup> and is subdivided in 65 subbasins, 55 of them gauged with a long historical record of observed discharge. The forecast system uses the calibrated hydrological model, COSERO, which is fed with an ensemble of seasonal temperature and precipitation forecasts. The output of the model provides an ensemble of seasonal discharge forecasts for each of the (gauged) subbasins. Seasonal meteorological forecasts for the past (hindcast), together with historical discharge observations, allow to assess the quality of the seasonal discharge forecasting system, also including the effects of different bias correction methods. The corrections applied to the discharge simulations allow to eliminate potential systematic errors between the modeled and observed values.</p><p>Our findings generally suggest that the quality of the seasonal forecasts improve when applying bias correction. Compared to simpler methods, which use additive or multiplicative scaling factors, quantile mapping techniques tend to be more appropriate in removing errors in the ensemble seasonal forecasts.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document