Utility of daily vs. monthly large-scale climate data: an intercomparison of two statistical downscaling methods

Abstract

Abstract. Downscaling of climate model data is essential to most impact analysis. We compare two methods of statistical downscaling to produce continuous, gridded time series of precipitation and surface air temperature at a 1/8-degree (approximately 140 km² per grid cell) resolution over the western U.S. We use NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis data from 1950–1999 as a surrogate General Circulation Model (GCM). The two methods included are constructed analogues (CA) and a bias correction and spatial downscaling (BCSD), both of which have been shown to be skillful in different settings, and BCSD has been used extensively in hydrologic impact analysis. Both methods use the coarse scale Reanalysis fields of precipitation and temperature as predictors of the corresponding fine scale fields. CA downscales daily large-scale data directly and BCSD downscales monthly data, with a random resampling technique to generate daily values. The methods produce comparable skill in producing downscaled, gridded fields of precipitation and temperatures at a monthly and seasonal level. For daily precipitation, both methods exhibit some skill in reproducing both observed wet and dry extremes and the difference between the methods is not significant, reflecting the general low skill in daily precipitation variability in the reanalysis data. For low temperature extremes, the CA method produces greater downscaling skill than BCSD for fall and winter seasons. For high temperature extremes, CA demonstrates higher skill than BCSD in summer. We find that the choice of most appropriate downscaling technique depends on the variables, seasons, and regions of interest, on the availability of daily data, and whether the day to day correspondence of weather from the GCM needs to be reproduced for some applications. The ability to produce skillful downscaled daily data depends primarily on the ability of the climate model to show daily skill.

Revisiting the recent California drought as an extreme value

“…Here two procedures are compared: (1) "mean/std adjustment" of the NADA tree ring record so that it has the same mean and standard deviation (std) as the instrumental data and (2) "quantile mapping" of the empirical cumulative distribution function (cdf) of the tree ring record onto that of the instrumental data. Mean/std adjustment is the more customary procedure in dendroclimatology [Meko, 1997], but quantile mapping has been widely used for bias correction in a variety of contexts [e.g., Abatzoglou and Brown, 2012;Maurer and Hidalgo, 2008;Wood et al, 2004]. While both mean/std adjustment and quantile mapping can be thought of as a bias correction and, therefore, produce pre-1895 PDSI values that are directly comparable to the instrumental data, the former uses just two parameters with the goal of matching the central tendency and dispersion of the two samples.…”

Long-term macroinvertebrate responses to climate change: implications for biological assessment in mediterranean-climate streams

“…Maurer and Hidalgo (2008) compare the two methods and find that they both perform reasonably well, but they do contain some noteworthy differences. Both methods have been shown to be skillful in different settings, and BCSD (Wood et al 2004) has been used extensively in hydrologic impact analysis.…”

Downscaled climate projections for the Southeast United States: evaluation and use for ecological applications

“…However, as noted previously, the techniques in this category tend to have poor representation of extreme events. For instance, Maurer and Hidalgo (2008) note that BCSD tends to have more error in the extremes of the temperature and precipitation distributions compared to other downscaling techniques.…”