The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Is bias correction of regional climate model (RCM) simulations possible for non-stationary conditions?
Open accessAbstract
Abstract. In hydrological climate-change impact studies, regional climate models (RCMs) are commonly used to transfer large-scale global climate model (GCM) data to smaller scales and to provide more detailed regional information. Due to systematic and random model errors, however, RCM simulations often show considerable deviations from observations. This has led to the development of a number of correction approaches that rely on the assumption that RCM errors do not change over time. It is in principle not possible to test whether this underlying assumption of error stationarity is actually fulfilled for future climate conditions. In this study, however, we demonstrate that it is possible to evaluate how well correction methods perform for conditions different from those used for calibration with the relatively simple differential split-sample test. For five Swedish catchments, precipitation and temperature simulations from 15 different RCMs driven by ERA40 (the 40 yr reanalysis product of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)) were corrected with different commonly used bias correction methods. We then performed differential split-sample tests by dividing the data series into cold and warm respective dry and wet years. This enabled us to cross-evaluate the performance of different correction procedures under systematically varying climate conditions. The differential split-sample test identified major differences in the ability of the applied correction methods to reduce model errors and to cope with non-stationary biases. More advanced correction methods performed better, whereas large deviations remained for climate model simulations corrected with simpler approaches. Therefore, we question the use of simple correction methods such as the widely used delta-change approach and linear transformation for RCM-based climate-change impact studies. Instead, we recommend using higher-skill correction methods such as distribution mapping.
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
Cites
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
Christensen, J. H., Boberg, F., Christensen, O. B., & Lucas‐Picher, P. (2008) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2008gl035694 · Cited by 729
Cited by
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
- Teutschbein, C., & Seibert, J.
- Venue
- Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
- Publisher
- Copernicus GmbH
- Published
- 2013-12-13
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 5061-5077
- ISSN
- 1027-5606 (ISSN-L)
- 1607-7938
- OpenAlex
- W2079000795
- Cited by
- 425
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 23.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Is bias correction of regional climate model (RCM) simulations possible for non-stationary conditions? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/hess-17-5061-2013
- The paper
- Teutschbein, C., & Seibert, J. (2013). Is bias correction of regional climate model (RCM) simulations possible for non-stationary conditions? Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-5061-2013
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.