2017
DOI: 10.1002/joc.5375
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The stationarity of two statistical downscaling methods for precipitation under different choices of cross‐validation periods

Abstract: Quantile‐mapping and Rglimclim cannot reliably downscale future precipitation in the eastern United States. Different cross‐validation periods identified many non‐overlapping locations where each downscaling method violated the stationarity assumption. The root‐mean‐square‐errors of Rglimclim models calibrated using one reanalysis dataset increased when they are applied to another reanalysis dataset.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 88 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…ASDM/ASDMTE suffers from the same assumption of stationarity as other downscaling methods, that is it assumes the statistical association between coarse-and fine-scale data does not change outside of the model training time [51,52]. In addition, we may need to further assume stationary of within-scale temporal associations (i.e., temporal lags) used in the model.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ASDM/ASDMTE suffers from the same assumption of stationarity as other downscaling methods, that is it assumes the statistical association between coarse-and fine-scale data does not change outside of the model training time [51,52]. In addition, we may need to further assume stationary of within-scale temporal associations (i.e., temporal lags) used in the model.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The black lines show the magnification of the 90th, 95th, 99th and 99.9th percentile precipitation amount for increasing temperatures. mate the increases in the atmospheric moisture capacity and, thus, the precipitation changes (Van de Vyver et al, 2019;Wasko et al, 2018). Figure 5 compares the WT occurrences for the historical climate model outputs with those for the reanalysis data sets.…”
Section: The Informative Assumptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, the model which captures best the relationships between predictors and predictand in calibration and validation within the observational period is used for projections. However, with closer examination of calibration and validation periods a temporal variation of the model skill can often be observed (Wang et al ., ). Wilby () attributes this variability to three different factors, but only one is related to changes within the atmospheric system through time.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%