A comparison of two downscaling methods for precipitation in China
Environmental Earth Sciences, ISSN: 1866-6299, Vol: 74, Issue: 8, Page: 6563-6569
2015
- 5Citations
- 21Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
In most cases, climate change projections from General Circulation Models (GCM) and Regional Climate Models cannot be directly applied to climate change impact studies, and downscaling is, therefore, needed. A large number of statistical downscaling methods exist, but no clear recommendations exist of which methods are more appropriate, depending on the application. This paper compares two different statistical downscaling methods, Pre and Pre, using the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) datasets and station observations. Both methods include two steps, but the major difference between them is how the CMIP5 dataset and the station data used. The downscaled precipitation data are validated with observations through China and Jiangxi province from 1976 to 2005. Results show that GCMs cannot be used directly in climate change impact studies. In China, the second method Pre, which establishes regression model based on the station data, has a tendency to overestimate or underestimate the real values. The accuracy of Pre is much better than Pre based on mean absolute error, mean relative error and root mean square error. Pre fuses the mode data and station data effectively. Results also show the importance of the meteorological station data in the process of residual modification.
Bibliographic Details
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know