2001
DOI: 10.3354/cr019045
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of climate change scenarios for Sweden based on statistical and dynamical downscaling of monthly precipitation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
73
0
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 111 publications
(77 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
3
73
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Methods based on non-linear ANNs were found to be the best at modelling the inter-annual variability but these had a strong negative bias in the estimation of extremes; circumvented by the development of a novel re-sampling method. Similar results to Murphy (2000) and Hellström et al (2001) were obtained when applying six of the methods to the HadAM3P model forced by two different emissions scenarios. The inter-method differences in the future change estimates for precipitation indices were at least as large as the differences between the emissions scenarios for a single method.…”
Section: Relative Performance Of Dynamical and Statistical Methodssupporting
confidence: 68%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Methods based on non-linear ANNs were found to be the best at modelling the inter-annual variability but these had a strong negative bias in the estimation of extremes; circumvented by the development of a novel re-sampling method. Similar results to Murphy (2000) and Hellström et al (2001) were obtained when applying six of the methods to the HadAM3P model forced by two different emissions scenarios. The inter-method differences in the future change estimates for precipitation indices were at least as large as the differences between the emissions scenarios for a single method.…”
Section: Relative Performance Of Dynamical and Statistical Methodssupporting
confidence: 68%
“…Climate change beyond the range of the data used to condition the model was hypothesized as a possible reason for this difference. Hellström et al (2001) compared dynamical outputs from the Rossby Centre RCM (RCA1) driven by two different GCMs (HadCM2 and ECHAM4/OPYC3) with regression models based on large-scale circulation indices and including a humidity measure. All downscaling methods improved the simulation of the seasonal cycle and statistical and dynamical methods driven by ECHAM4 showed higher simulation skill.…”
Section: Relative Performance Of Dynamical and Statistical Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This family of downscaling approaches is not typically capable of resolving the complex underlying dynamics of precipitation processes and is thus unable to produce realistic and sufficiently accurate precipitation at high spatiotemporal resolutions (Gutmann et al 2012). On the other hand, dynamical downscaling approaches are computationally more demanding than their statistical counterparts (Hellstrom et al 2001) but are able to resolve the inherent precipitation dynamics (Schmidli et al 2007). In addition, the family of dynamical downscaling methods is also able to provide hydrometeorological variables (e.g., downward radiation, surface temperature, and surface wind speed) that are physically consistent with the downscaled precipitation and required by many hydrological models.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…* Correspondence to: R. E. Benestad, The Norwegian Meteorological Institute, 0313 Oslo, Norway. E-mail: rasmus.benestad@met.no A variety of empirical downscaling studies were reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2001), and several studies including empirical downscaling of precipitation have been performed for Fennoscandia during the later years (Busuioc et al, 2001;Hellström et al, 2001;Benestad, 2002;Hanssen-Bauer et al, 2003;Hellström, 2003;Linderson et al, 2004;;Chen et al, 2005;Imbert and Benestad, 2005). Comparisons of results from different downscaling techniques HanssenBauer et al, 2003), different choices of domain size (Benestad, 2001) and different choices of predictors (Benestad, 2004b;Linderson et al, 2004) indicate that the results may be sensitive to choices made in downscaling.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%