Abstract. Bias correction (BC) is often a necessity to improve the applicability of
global and regional climate model (GCM and RCM, respectively) outputs to
impact assessment studies, which usually depend on multiple potentially
dependent variables. To date, various BC methods have been developed which
adjust climate variables separately (univariate BC) or jointly (multivariate
BC) prior to their application in impact studies (i.e., the component-wise
approach). Another possible approach is to first calculate the multivariate
hazard index from the original, biased simulations and bias-correct the
impact model output or index itself using univariate methods (direct
approach). This has the advantage of circumventing the difficulties
associated with correcting the inter-variable dependence of climate
variables which is not considered by univariate BC methods. Using a multivariate drought index (i.e., standardized precipitation
evapotranspiration index – SPEI) as an example, the present
study compares different state-of-the-art BC methods (univariate and
multivariate) and BC approaches (direct and component-wise) applied to
climate model simulations stemming from different experiments at different
spatial resolutions (namely Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX), CORDEX Coordinated Output for Regional Evaluations (CORDEX-CORE), and 6th Coupled Intercomparison Project (CMIP6)). The BC methods
are calibrated and evaluated over the same historical period (1986–2005).
The proposed framework is demonstrated as a case study over a transboundary
watershed, i.e., the Upper Jhelum Basin (UJB) in the Western Himalayas. Results show that (1) there is some added value of multivariate BC methods
over the univariate methods in adjusting the inter-variable relationship;
however, comparable performance is found for SPEI indices. (2) The best-performing BC methods exhibit a comparable performance under both approaches
with a slightly better performance for the direct approach. (3) The added
value of the high-resolution experiments (CORDEX-CORE) compared to their
coarser-resolution counterparts (CORDEX) is not apparent in this study.