1 / 21

Evaluation of a dynamic downscaling of precipitation over the Norwegian mainland

Evaluation of a dynamic downscaling of precipitation over the Norwegian mainland. Orskaug E. a , Scheel I. b , Frigessi A. c,a , Guttorp P. d,a , Haugen J. E. e , Tveito O. E. e , Haug O. a a Norwegian Computing Center, Oslo, Norway

chip
Download Presentation

Evaluation of a dynamic downscaling of precipitation over the Norwegian mainland

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation of a dynamic downscaling of precipitation over the Norwegian mainland Orskaug E.a, Scheel I.b, Frigessi A.c,a, Guttorp P.d,a, Haugen J. E.e, Tveito O. E.e, Haug O.a a Norwegian Computing Center, Oslo, Norway b Department of Mathematics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway c Department of Biostatistics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway d University of Washington, Seattle, USA e The Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway

  2. Motivation • Climate research produces an increasing number of data sets combining different GCMs, CO2 emission scenarios and downscaling techniques. • For impact studies, but also as an issue of separate interest, the quality of these data need to be verified.

  3. Goal • Wewant to comparedownscaled ERA-40 reanalysis data (RCM) againstobservationsof Norwegian precipitation. • How goodarethe RCM data? • Where (in thedistribution) doesthe RCM differ from theobservations? • Where (geographically) doesthe RCM perform best/worst?

  4. Why is this work important? • It assesses the quality of a dynamic downscaled data and highlights which areas these data capture reality and where there are deviations from the truth. • Another aim is to show how standard methods of statistical testing may be used to assess dynamic downscaling.

  5. Data Model data Observations Interpolations (1 x 1 km2) from a triangulationoftheofficialmeasurementstationsoperated by The Norwegian MeteorologicalInstitute. Aggregated to 25 x 25 km2scale by collecting 1 x 1 km2 grid cellswithcentre points withinthe RCM cell, themean is representingtheprecipitationwithinthat grid cell. • RCM model, dynamicallydownscaled HIRHAM model, forced by ERA-40 reanalysis data from the ENSEMBLES project. • Spatial resolution of 25 x 25 km2. • Reliant on thedownscaling, still supposed to possess properties similar to real weatherlocally over longer time periods.

  6. Data – The RCM • The RCM from the ENSEMBLES project

  7. Data – properties for both data sets • Climate variable: precipitation • Time period: 1961 – 2000 • Time scale: Daily, seasonal • Resolution: 25 x 25 km2 • Numberof grid cells: 777 grid cellscovering Norway

  8. Methods for comparison • Evaluatethedistributions • Global measure: Kolmogorov Smirnov test • Localmeasures:

  9. Comments • Drizzle effect avoided: conditioned on wet days; i.e. days with precipitation below a small, positive threshold (0.5 mm/day) are discarded. • Day-to-day correlation in the RCM is partly lost due to downscaling, hence the distributions have to be compared instead of comparing day by day. • Separate tests for each grid cell and each season.

  10. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test • K-S two sample test is used to checkwhethertheempiricaldistributions from the RCM and theobservationsareequal. • To avoidthe problem oftied data, a small, random normallydistributednumber, N(0, σ2), is added to each data point. σ = 1e-7

  11. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test – Results • The null hypothesisofequalityofthedistributionsarerejected for almost all grid cells for all thefourseasons. • Global picture: the RCM does not have the same distribution as theobservations. • Next: want to findoutwherethedistributionsdiffer; localmeasures.

  12. Methods for comparison • Evaluatethedistributions • Global measure: Kolmogorov Smirnov test • Localmeasures:

  13. Test equality of quantiles Construction of the 2 x 2 contigency table

  14. 0.05-quantile – Results • Hardlyanyrejectionsof null hypothesisofequality. • For lowquantiles: the RCM reproduces theobservationswellbothseason- and nationwide.

  15. 0.95-quantile – Results • Mainlyrejectionsofthe null hypothesisofequality. • Overall picture: the RCM underestimateshighprecipitation.

  16. Generalized Pareto Distribution (GPD)

  17. GPD – Results • One-yearreturnlevels from GPD are more similarthanexpressedthroughtheKolmogorov-Smirnov test. • Butstill: tendencythatthe RCM underestimateshighprecipitation.

  18. Wet day frequency • Wet day frequency = Proportion of wet days (among all days in the data) • A wet day is defined to be above 0.5 mm/day for both data sets. • The equality of the wet day frequency is tested by permutation testing.

  19. Wet day frequency – Results • Mainlyrejectionsofthe null hypothesisofequality. • Total picture: Wetdayfrequencyofthe RCM is greaterthan for theobservations.

  20. Summary • Small amounts of rainfall: the RCM shows good agreement with the observations. • When rainfall amounts is beyond the first quartile, the agreement disappear. • The RCM has too many and too small rain events for all seasons. • This work is accepted for publication in Tellus A. An improvement/correction of the RCM is needed.

  21. What to do next? • We want to add a statistical correction method to the output of the RCM, especially improve the right tail. • Simple linear regression was tried out, but did not improve the results. • We are currently working on a more complex transformation with spatial corrections.

More Related