Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-177
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-177
Submitted as: methods for assessment of models
 | 
14 Nov 2024
Submitted as: methods for assessment of models |  | 14 Nov 2024
Status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal GMD.

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

Young Hoon Song and Eun-Sung Chung

Abstract. This study, conducted across six continents, evaluated and compared the effectiveness of three Quantile Mapping (QM) methods: Quantile Delta Mapping (QDM), Empirical Quantile Mapping (EQM), and Detrended Quantile Mapping (DQM) for correcting daily precipitation data from 11 CMIP6 General Circulation Models (GCMs). The performance of corrected precipitation data was evaluated using ten evaluation metrics, and the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) was applied to calculate performance-based priorities. Bayesian Model Averaging (BMA) was used to quantify model-specific and ensemble prediction uncertainties. Subsequently, this study developed a comprehensive index by aggregating the performance scores from TOPSIS with the uncertainty metrics from BMA. The results showed that EQM performed the best on all continents, effectively managing performance and uncertainty. QDM outperformed other methods in specific regions and was selected more frequently than DQM when greater weight was given to uncertainty. It suggests that daily precipitation corrected by QDM is more stable than DQM. On the other hand, DQM effectively reproduces dry climate but shows the highest uncertainty in certain regions, suggesting potential limitations in capturing long-term climate trends. This study emphasizes that both performance and uncertainty should be considered when choosing a bias correction method to increase the reliability of climate predictions.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Young Hoon Song and Eun-Sung Chung

Status: open (until 09 Jan 2025)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Young Hoon Song and Eun-Sung Chung
Young Hoon Song and Eun-Sung Chung

Viewed

Total article views: 107 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
89 13 5 107 8 2 1
  • HTML: 89
  • PDF: 13
  • XML: 5
  • Total: 107
  • Supplement: 8
  • BibTeX: 2
  • EndNote: 1
Views and downloads (calculated since 14 Nov 2024)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 14 Nov 2024)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 104 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 104 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 23 Nov 2024
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.