[NARCCAP-discuss] High observed vs. modeled errors for precipitation

[Sujan Pal]

Hi,

NARCCAP precipitation data is not at all perfect. I work with NARCCAP data
all over US and I found that it under or over estimates the precipitation (
mainly in case of extremes) in various regions of US. Some previous works
also has shown the same in different hydro-logical aspects. I am attaching
the paper which I think to be most related with this topic. I think you are
familiar with the link http://www.narccap.ucar.edu/contrib/papers.html
where you can easily find various works already done on NARCCAP.



Thanks,

Sujan
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department,
Jadavpur University, Calcutta.
Research Assistant
Northeastern University, Boston.




On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:17 AM, jayanti pal <jiban_samudra18 at yahoo.com>wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Though I am not familier with NARCCAP model I suggest to check the
> precipiation values in the dataset. I found a paper "Evaluation and bias
> correction of Precipitation and Temperature of NARCCAP Regional Climate
> Models over the North Carolina, US" by
>
> Kim, Y.; Band, L. E.  where they used five GCM-RCM model among which in
> the RCM3s, spring and winter
> precipitation are overestimated. I cant open this paper due to restriction
> on this site. I also found another paper, I have attached it . Hope it will
> help you.
>
> With Regards,
>
>
>
> Jayanti Pal
> Junior Research Fellow
> Department of Atmospheric SCience
> University Of Calcutta
> email-jiban_samudra18 at yahoo.com
> jayantibright at gmail.com
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Kelli Walters <waltersk at onid.orst.edu>
> To: narccap-discuss at mailman.ucar.edu
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2013 5:47 AM
> Subject: [NARCCAP-discuss] High observed vs. modeled errors for
> precipitation
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I am evaluating which NARCCAP model runs best fit my observed data to
> determine which ones I should use as climate projections in a
> hydrologic model. I am comparing the past data set (1970-2000) from
> the models to observed data for temperature (max and min) and
> precipitation. For temperature, the models seem to accurately reflect
> the observations, with Nash-Sutcliffe efficiencies around 0.5 (r2 of
> 0.5-0.6) for daily comparison and in the range of 0.6-0.9 (r2 of about
> 0.85) for monthly averages.
>
> However, for precipitation, my errors have been much larger. I am
> getting Nash-Sutcliffe efficiencies of around -0.4 to -1 (r2 of 0.02
> and smaller) for both daily values and monthly averages. What I am
> wondering is: are these error values normal or in the same range as
> other people are getting for precipitation?
>
> Do you have any papers or references that give these error metrics for
> precipitation when comparing the modeled data to observations? I have
> been looking for literature to back up what I am finding, but I can't
> seem to find what values are considered "acceptable" for precipitation
> error. Any help or sources you can provide on this would be much
> appreciated.
>
> Thank you,
> Kelli
>
>
> --
> KELLI WALTERS, EIT
> M.S. Candidate
> Civil Engineering | Water Resources
> Oregon State University
> waltersk at onid.orst.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> narccap-discuss mailing list
> narccap-discuss at mailman.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/narccap-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> narccap-discuss mailing list
> narccap-discuss at mailman.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/narccap-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rcm_vmishra.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 3386191 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/narccap-discuss/attachments/20130831/05d75eb0/attachment-0001.pdf