4.6 Article

Statistical downscaling and bias correction of climate model outputs for climate change impact assessment in the US northeast

期刊

GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE
卷 100, 期 -, 页码 320-332

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.11.003

关键词

bias correction; climate change impact analysis; extreme climate index; statistical downscaling

资金

  1. USDA-NRI [2008-003237]
  2. University of Connecticut Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering (CESE)
  3. NSF [AGS-1049017]
  4. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences
  5. Directorate For Geosciences [1049017] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Statistical downscaling can be used to efficiently downscale a large number of General Circulation Model (GCM) outputs to a fine temporal and spatial scale. To facilitate regional impact assessments, this study statistically downscales (to 1/8 degrees spatial resolution) and corrects the bias of daily maximum and minimum temperature and daily precipitation data from six GCMs and four Regional Climate Models (RCMs) for the northeast United States (US) using the Statistical Downscaling and Bias Correction (SDBC) approach. Based on these downscaled data from multiple models, five extreme indices were analyzed for the future climate to quantify future changes of climate extremes. For a subset of models and indices, results based on raw and bias corrected model outputs for the present-day climate were compared with observations, which demonstrated that bias correction is important not only for GCM outputs, but also for RCM outputs. For future climate, bias correction led to a higher level of agreements among the models in predicting the magnitude and capturing the spatial pattern of the extreme climate indices. We found that the incorporation of dynamical downscaling as an intermediate step does not lead to considerable differences in the results of statistical downscaling for the study domain. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据