Geoscientific Model Development
Geoscientific Model Development
GMD
Articles | Volume 18, issue 20
Articles | Volume 18, issue 20
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-8017-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-8017-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Articles | Volume 18, issue 20
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
29 Oct 2025
Methods for assessment of models |  | 29 Oct 2025

Intercomparison of bias correction methods for precipitation of multiple GCMs across six continents

Young Hoon Song and Eun-Sung Chung

Viewed

Total article views: 3,876 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
1,841 1,853 182 3,876 157 92 131
  • HTML: 1,841
  • PDF: 1,853
  • XML: 182
  • Total: 3,876
  • Supplement: 157
  • BibTeX: 92
  • EndNote: 131
Views and downloads (calculated since 14 Nov 2024)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 14 Nov 2024)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 3,876 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 3,846 with geography defined and 30 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 17 Mar 2026
Download
Short summary
This study assessed three methods for correcting daily precipitation data: Quantile Delta Mapping, Empirical Quantile Mapping (EQM), and Detrended Quantile Mapping (DQM) using 11 GCMs. EQM performed best overall, offering reliable corrections and lower uncertainty. The best bias correction method for each grid is selected differently depending on the weighting case. The best bias correction method can vary depending on factors such as climate and terrain.
Read more
Share