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

[Seth McGinnis]

Hi Kelli,

If you do go the bias-correction route, this paper has a very nice analysis of
the strengths and weaknesses of different methods:

Teutschbein, C., and J. Seibert, 2012: “Bias correction of regional climate
model simulations for hydrological climate-change impact studies: Review and
evaluation of different methods.” Journal of Hydrology, vv. 456-457, pp. 12-29,
doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.05.052.

(There's also a follow-up paper in HESSD that evaluates the effects of
non-stationarity: doi:10.5194/hessd-9-12765-2012 .)

Cheers,

--Seth

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:38:39 +0000
 "Obeysekera, Jayantha" <jobey at sfwmd.gov> wrote:
>Hi Kelli,
>I am not surprised.
>We have had similar findings in Florida.  I believe your only choice may be to
>"bias-correct" the NARCCAP data before they are used in hydrological models.
> I personally do not think that is the right way to use RCM data but there
>appears to be no other choice.
>Obey
>________________________________________
>From: narccap-discuss-bounces at mailman.ucar.edu
>[narccap-discuss-bounces at mailman.ucar.edu] on behalf of Kelli Walters
>[waltersk at onid.orst.edu]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 8:17 PM
>To: narccap-discuss at mailman.ucar.edu
>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
>
>
>
>We value your opinion. Please take a few minutes to share your comments on the
>service you received from the District by clicking on this
>link<http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/pg_grp_surveysystem/survey%20ext?pid=1653>.
>
>_______________________________________________
>narccap-discuss mailing list
>narccap-discuss at mailman.ucar.edu
>http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/narccap-discuss