The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of various precipitation downscaling methods for the simulation of streamflow in a rainshadow river basin
Abstract
Global simulations of precipitation from climate models lack sufficient resolution and contain large biases that make them unsuitable for regional studies, such as forcing hydrologic simulations. In this study, the effectiveness of several methods to downscale large‐scale precipitation is examined. To facilitate comparisons with observations and to remove uncertainties in other fields, large‐scale predictor fields to be downscaled are taken from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction–National Center for Atmospheric Research reanalyses. Three downscaling methods are used: (1): a local scaling of the simulated large‐scale precipitation; (2) a modified scaling of simulated precipitation that takes into account the large‐scale wind field; and (3) an analogue method with 1000 hPa heights as predictor. A hydrologic model of the Yakima River in central Washington state, USA, is then forced by the three downscaled precipitation datasets. Simulations with the raw large‐scale precipitation and gridded observations are also made. Comparisons among these simulated flows reveal the effectiveness of the downscaling methods. The local scaling of the simulated large‐scale precipitation is shown to be quite successful and simple to implement. Furthermore, the tuning of the downscaling methods is valid across phases of the Pacific decadal oscillation, suggesting that the methods are applicable to climate‐change studies. Copyright © 2003 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
Jakob Themeßl, M., Gobiet, A., & Leuprecht, A. (2011) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.2168 · Cited by 770
Uncertainty of downscaling method in quantifying the impact of climate change on hydrology
Chen, J., Brissette, F. P., & Leconte, R. (2011) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.02.020 · Cited by 687
Statistical and dynamical downscaling of the Seine basin climate for hydro‐meteorological studies
Boé, J., Terray, L., Habets, F., & Martin, E. (2007) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.1602 · Cited by 572
Teutschbein, C., & Seibert, J. (2013) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-17-5061-2013 · Cited by 425
Managing uncertainty in climate-driven ecological models to inform adaptation to climate change
Littell, J. S., McKenzie, D., Kerns, B. K., Cushman, S., & Shaw, C. G. (2011) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1890/es11-00114.1 · Cited by 138
Metadata
- Authors
- Salathé, E. P.
- Venue
- International Journal of Climatology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-06-17
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 887-901
- ISSN
- 0899-8418 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0088
- OpenAlex
- W2114725858
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.15
- 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: Comparison of various precipitation downscaling methods for the simulation of streamflow in a rainshadow river basin. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/joc.922
- The paper
- Salathé, E. P. (2003). Comparison of various precipitation downscaling methods for the simulation of streamflow in a rainshadow river basin. International Journal of Climatology. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.922
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.