Journal of Geography and Planning

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Peer Review Process

Indexing and Abstracting

Statistics of Journals

FAQ

News

Related Links

Evaluation of different bias correction methods and Projection of Future Precipitation Changes Using GFDL-ESM4 model in Lake Urmia basin

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Professor of Hydrology and Meteorology, Urmia University

2 payame noor university

Abstract

The outputs of general circulation models (GCMs) usually have a bias compared to observational data, and some corrections must be made before using them to develop future climate scenarios. The bias correction methods are the standard statistical methods for processing the output of climate models. In this research, the effect of five bias correction methods on the projected precipitation of the GFDL-ESM4 model in the Lake Urmia basin has been evaluated. The methods used in this research include linear scaling (LS), local intensity scaling (LOCI), power transformation (PT), distribution mapping (DM) and delta change factor (DC). Statistical metrics such as the correlation coefficient, root mean square error (RMSE) and percentage bias (PBias) have been used to evaluate the accuracy of the corrected data in the period of 1990-2014 compared to the observational data and to choose the best method for correcting the data of future scenarios. research results showed that the delta change method significantly improved the raw estimates after correction; Therefore, this method was used to correct the data of scenarios SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5. In addition, the projection of the mean annual precipitation shows a decrease between 2 and 9 percent in SSP1-2.6, between 5 and 17 percent in SSP2-4.5, and between 8 and 26 percent in SSP2-8.5 compared to the observed data.

Highlights

The outputs of general circulation models (GCMs) usually have a bias compared to observational data, and some corrections must be made before using them to develop future climate scenarios. The bias correction methods are the standard statistical methods for processing the output of climate models. In this research, the effect of five bias correction methods on the projected precipitation of the GFDL-ESM4 model in the Lake Urmia basin has been evaluated. The methods used in this research include linear scaling (LS), local intensity scaling (LOCI), power transformation (PT), distribution mapping (DM) and delta change factor (DC). Statistical metrics such as the correlation coefficient, root mean square error (RMSE) and percentage bias (PBias) have been used to evaluate the accuracy of the corrected data in the period of 1990-2014 compared to the observational data and to choose the best method for correcting the data of future scenarios. research results showed that the delta change method significantly improved the raw estimates after correction; Therefore, this method was used to correct the data of scenarios SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5. In addition, the projection of the mean annual precipitation shows a decrease between 2 and 9 percent in SSP1-2.6, between 5 and 17 percent in SSP2-4.5, and between 8 and 26 percent in SSP2-8.5 compared to the observed data.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References
Almazroui, M., Saeed, F., Saeed, S., Nazrul Islam, M., Ismail, M., Klutse, N. A. B., & Siddiqui, M. H. (2020). Projected change in temperature and precipitation over Africa from CMIP6. Earth Systems and Environment, 4(3), 455-475
Alizadeh‐Choobari, O., Ahmadi‐Givi, F., Mirzaei, N., & Owlad, E. (2016). Climate change and anthropogenic impacts on the rapid shrinkage of Lake Urmia. International Journal of Climatology, 36(13), 4276-4286
Ajaaj, A. A., Mishra, A., & Khan, A. A. (2016). Comparison of BIAS correction techniques for GPCC rainfall data in semi-arid climate. Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment, 30(6), 1659-1675.‏
Brent, R. P. (1971). An algorithm with guaranteed convergence for finding a zero of a function. The computer journal, 14(4), 422-425
Doulabian, S., Golian, S., Toosi, A. S., & Murphy, C. (2021). Evaluating the effects of climate change on precipitation and temperature for Iran using RCP scenarios. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 12(1), 166-184
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., & Taylor, K. E. (2016). Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geoscientific Model Development, 9(5), 1937-1958
Fang, M., & Li, X. (2016). Application of Bayesian model averaging in the reconstruction of past climate change using PMIP3/CMIP5 multimodel ensemble simulations. Journal of climate, 29(1), 175-189
Fang, G. H., Yang, J., Chen, Y. N., & Zammit, C. (2015). Comparing bias correction methods in downscaling meteorological variables for a hydrologic impact study in an arid area in China. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 19(6), 2547-2559.‏
Ghimire, U., Srinivasan, G., & Agarwal, A. (2019). Assessment of rainfall bias correction techniques for improved hydrological simulation. International Journal of Climatology, 39(4), 2386-2399.‏
Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., & Yapo, P. O. (1999). Status of automatic calibration for hydrologic models: Comparison with multilevel expert calibration. Journal of hydrologic engineering, 4(2), 135-143.‏
Hong, J., Javan, K., Shin, Y., & Park, J. S. (2021). Future projections and uncertainty assessment of precipitation extremeS in Iran from the CMIP6 Ensemble. Atmosphere, 12(8), 1052.‏
IPCC. The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013
IPCC. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. In Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Masson-Delmotte, V.P., Zhai, A., Pirani, S.L., Connors, C., Péan, S., Berger, N., Caud, Y., Chen, L., Goldfarb, M.I., Gomis, M., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021
Kim, G., Cha, D. H., Lee, G., Park, C., Jin, C. S., Lee, D. K., ... & Kim, J. (2020). Projection of future precipitation change over South Korea by regional climate models and bias correction methods. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 141(3), 1415-1429.‏
Kim, J. H., Sung, J. H., Chung, E. S., Kim, S. U., Son, M., & Shiru, M. S. (2021). Comparison of Projection in Meteorological and Hydrological Droughts in the Cheongmicheon Watershed for RCP4. 5 and SSP2-4.5. Sustainability, 13(4), 2066.‏
Leander, R., & Buishand, T. A. (2007). Resampling of regional climate model output for the simulation of extreme river flows. Journal of hydrology, 332(3-4), 487-496
Middelkoop, H., Daamen, K., Gellens, D., Grabs, W., Kwadijk, J. C., Lang, H., ... & Wilke, K. (2001). Impact of climate change on hydrological regimes and water resources management in the Rhine basin. Climatic change, 49(1), 105-128
Mendez, M., Maathuis, B., Hein-Griggs, D., & Alvarado-Gamboa, L. F. (2020). Performance evaluation of bias correction methods for climate change monthly precipitation projections over Costa Rica. Water, 12(2), 482
Naderi, M., & Saatsaz, M. (2020). Impact of climate change on the hydrology and water salinity in the Anzali Wetland, northern Iran. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 65(4), 552-570
Rathjens, H., Bieger, K., Srinivasan, R., Chaubey, I., & Arnold, J. G. (2016). CMhyd user manual. Doc. Prep. Simulated Clim. Change Data Hydrol. Impact Study.‏
Räty, O., Räisänen, J., & Ylhäisi, J. S. (2014). Evaluation of delta change and bias correction methods for future daily precipitation: intermodel cross-validation using ENSEMBLES simulations. Climate dynamics, 42(9), 2287-2303
Riahi, K., Van Vuuren, D. P., Kriegler, E., Edmonds, J., O’neill, B. C., Fujimori, S., ... & Tavoni, M. (2017). The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Global environmental change, 42, 153-168
Schmidli, J., Frei, C., & Vidale, P. L. (2006). Downscaling from GCM precipitation: a benchmark for dynamical and statistical downscaling methods. International Journal of Climatology, 26(5), 679-689.‏
Shrestha, D. L., Robertson, D. E., Bennett, J. C., & Wang, Q. J. (2015). Improving precipitation forecasts by generating ensembles through postprocessing. Monthly Weather Review, 143(9), 3642-3663
Stouffer, R. J., Eyring, V., Meehl, G. A., Bony, S., Senior, C., Stevens, B., & Taylor, K. E. (2017). CMIP5 scientific gaps and recommendations for CMIP6. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 98(1), 95-105
Sundaram, G., & Radhakrishnan, S. (2022). Performance Evaluation of Bias Correction Methods and Projection of Future Precipitation Changes Using Regional Climate Model over Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 1-12
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., & Meehl, G. A. (2012). An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bulletin of the American meteorological Society, 93(4), 485-498
Teutschbein, C., & Seibert, J. (2012). Bias correction of regional climate model simulations for hydrological climate-change impact studies: Review and evaluation of different methods. Journal of hydrology, 456, 12-29
Teutschbein, C., & Seibert, J. (2013). Is bias correction of regional climate model (RCM) simulations possible for non-stationary conditions?. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17(12), 5061-5077
Zhao, T., Bennett, J. C., Wang, Q. J., Schepen, A., Wood, A. W., Robertson, D. E., & Ramos, M. H. (2017). How suitable is quantile mapping for postprocessing GCM precipitation forecasts?. Journal of Climate, 30(9), 3185-3196
Journal of Geography and Planning
Volume 28, Issue 88 - Serial Number 89
March 2024
Pages 415-397
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics