2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2015.01.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation and improvement of the CLIGEN model for storm and rainfall erosivity generation in Central Chile

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
15
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
15
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The application of WGEN in Chile, Taulis, and Milke [31] reported an underestimation of the annual precipitation of 42% in arid region, and identified gaps to be addressed in order to assemble a new and better stochastic model. Also, Lobo et al [10] used CLIGEN (CLImate GENerator) in central Chile (32°-39° S), and found that prior to calibration, the storm durations and maximum intensities were consistently overestimated and underestimated, respectively, especially in the wet season.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The application of WGEN in Chile, Taulis, and Milke [31] reported an underestimation of the annual precipitation of 42% in arid region, and identified gaps to be addressed in order to assemble a new and better stochastic model. Also, Lobo et al [10] used CLIGEN (CLImate GENerator) in central Chile (32°-39° S), and found that prior to calibration, the storm durations and maximum intensities were consistently overestimated and underestimated, respectively, especially in the wet season.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This model was implemented as WGEN (Weather GENerator) by Richardson and Wright (1984) [1], which used a simple Markov Chain for precipitation occurrence, a gamma distribution for simulation of rainfall amounts, and an autoregressive model for the remaining variables. A number of subsequent WGs, such as WXGEN [8], CLIGEN [9,10], LARS-WG [11][12][13], ClimGen [14], WeaGETS [15,16], Met and Roll [17], MOFRBC [18,19], WeatherMan [20], MarkSim [21], AAFC-WG [22,23], WM2 [24], KnnCAD [25][26][27], and the WG used by the UK Met Office (UKCP09) [28,29], all share the basic principles of stochastic simulation presented in WGEN. These WGs are station-scale generators, with time scales that range from daily (or even hourly in the case of rainfall) to annual, daily resolution being the most common.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(11) with Δt = 0.5 yields the estimated I 30 using rainfall data with a temporal resolution of 0.5 h. However, in the absence of 0.5-h rainfall records in the study sites, the accuracy of Eqs. (10) and (11) was tested by using the 0.5-h rainfall erosivity obtained using Wenzel's (1982) IDF curve as a reference and the methods described in Lobo et al (2015). This IDF curve was chosen as a reference because it best represents the frontal nature of storms in Central Chile, as other methods, such as Bell's (1969) conversion factors, tend to overestimate I 30 in the study sites (Lobo et al, 2015).…”
Section: Comparison Methods and Correction Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(10) and (11) was tested by using the 0.5-h rainfall erosivity obtained using Wenzel's (1982) IDF curve as a reference and the methods described in Lobo et al (2015). This IDF curve was chosen as a reference because it best represents the frontal nature of storms in Central Chile, as other methods, such as Bell's (1969) conversion factors, tend to overestimate I 30 in the study sites (Lobo et al, 2015). Moreover, the KolmogorovSmirnov test with an α = 0.5 was used to test if the I 30 estimates obtained using the regression lines and Wenzel's IDF were consistent.…”
Section: Comparison Methods and Correction Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation