The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Empirical‐statistical downscaling and error correction of daily precipitation from regional climate models
Abstract
Although regional climate models (RCMs) are powerful tools for describing regional and even smaller scale climate conditions, they still feature severe systematic errors. In order to provide optimized climate scenarios for climate change impact research, this study merges linear and nonlinear empirical‐statistical downscaling techniques with bias correction methods and investigates their ability for reducing RCM error characteristics. An ensemble of seven empirical‐statistical downscaling and error correction methods (DECMs) is applied to post‐process daily precipitation sums of a high‐resolution regional climate hindcast simulation over the Alpine region, their error characteristics are analysed and compared to the raw RCM results. Drastic reductions in error characteristics due to application of DECMs are demonstrated. Direct point‐wise methods like quantile mapping and local intensity scaling as well as indirect spatial methods as nonlinear analogue methods yield systematic improvements in median, variance, frequency, intensity and extremes of daily precipitation. Multiple linear regression methods, even if optimized by predictor selection, transformation and randomization, exhibit significant shortcomings for modelling daily precipitation due to their linear framework. Comparing the well‐performing methods to each other, quantile mapping shows the best performance, particularly at high quantiles, which is advantageous for applications related to extreme precipitation events. The improvements are obtained regardless of season and region, which indicates the potential transferability of these methods to other regions. Copyright © 2010 Royal Meteorological Society
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Gudmundsson, L., Bremnes, J. B., Haugen, J. E., & Engen-Skaugen, T. (2012) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-16-3383-2012 · Cited by 1,318
A trend-preserving bias correction – the ISI-MIP approach
Hempel, S., Frieler, K., Warszawski, L., Schewe, J., & Piontek, F. (2013) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-4-219-2013 · Cited by 1,238
“Hence, in many cases differences in the variance or even higher moments of the simulated data are adjusted to the observations by parametric or non-parametric (empirical) quantile mapping (Boe et al., 2007; Piani et al., 2010; Themeßl et al., 2011).”
MethodBias-corrected climate projections for South Asia from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project-6
Mishra, V., Bhatia, U., & Tiwari, A. D. (2020) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-020-00681-1 · Cited by 472
Monhart, S., Spirig, C., Bhend, J., Bogner, K., Schär, C., & Liniger, M. A. (2018) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2017jd027923 · Cited by 75
Dhawan, P., Dalla Torre, D., Niazkar, M., Kaffas, K., Larcher, M., Righetti, M., & Menapace, A. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40352 · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- Jakob Themeßl, M., Gobiet, A., & Leuprecht, A.
- Venue
- International Journal of Climatology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-07-25
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1530-1544
- ISSN
- 0899-8418 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0088
- OpenAlex
- W2034174587
- Cited by
- 770
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Empirical‐statistical downscaling and error correction of daily precipitation from regional climate models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/joc.2168
- The paper
- Jakob Themeßl, M., Gobiet, A., & Leuprecht, A. (2011). Empirical‐statistical downscaling and error correction of daily precipitation from regional climate models. International Journal of Climatology. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.2168
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.