0 tayangan

- Responding to Climate Change in New York State, Technical Report published by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
- MJC_H2_MATH_P2
- Demand Forecasting for Eggs & Soap
- Mohanty.et.Al
- 01 Climate Models and Their Limitations
- science fair experimental self assesment
- Predictors of School Success in Romania.
- Global Warming
- 695_Woo
- Climate Change, Hydrology, And Water Resources
- Climate Change Will Affect Plant Pests and Diseases in the Same Way It Affects Infectious Disease Agents
- SPSS_lab2Regression
- Analysis of Parameters of Ground Vibration Produced From Bench Blasting at a Limestone Quarry
- MIT17_871S12_GrpGuidance
- Expert Meeting Report Scenarios
- Experimental Methodr
- Geomath Lect12 Stats
- E-59.pdf
- corr reg 1.pdf
- 12585515

Anda di halaman 1dari 22

com

www.elsevier.com/locate/envsoft

Masoud Hessami a,*, Philippe Gachon b,c, Taha B.M.J. Ouarda d, André St-Hilaire d

a

Department of Civil Engineering, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman 76169-133, Iran

b

Adaptation and Impacts Research Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment Canada, Montréal, Québec, Canada

c

McGill University, Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, 817 Sherbrooke Street West, Montréal, Québec H3A 2K6, Canada

d

INRS-ETE, Chair in Statistical Hydrology, University of Québec, 490 de la Couronne, Québec G1K 9A9, Canada

Received 27 August 2005; received in revised form 3 October 2007; accepted 4 October 2007

Abstract

Many impact studies require climate change information at a finer resolution than that provided by Global Climate Models (GCMs). In the

last 10 years, downscaling techniques, both dynamical (i.e. Regional Climate Model) and statistical methods, have been developed to obtain fine

resolution climate change scenarios. In this study, an automated statistical downscaling (ASD) regression-based approach inspired by the SDSM

method (statistical downscaling model) developed by Wilby, R.L., Dawson, C.W., Barrow, E.M. [2002. SDSM e a decision support tool for the

assessment of regional climate change impacts, Environmental Modelling and Software 17, 147e159] is presented and assessed to reconstruct

the observed climate in eastern Canada based extremes as well as mean state. In the ASD model, automatic predictor selection methods are

based on backward stepwise regression and partial correlation coefficients. The ASD model also gives the possibility to use ridge regression

to alleviate the effect of the non-orthogonality of predictor vectors. Outputs from the first generation Canadian Coupled Global Climate Model

(CGCM1) and the third version of the coupled global Hadley Centre Climate Model (HadCM3) are used to test this approach over the current

period (i.e. 1961e1990), and compare results with observed temperature and precipitation from 10 meteorological stations of Environment Can-

ada located in eastern Canada. All ASD and SDSM models, as these two models are evaluated and inter-compared, are calibrated using NCEP

(National Center for Environmental Prediction) reanalysis data before the use of GCMs atmospheric fields as input variables.

The results underline certain limitations to downscale the precipitation regime and its strength to downscale the temperature regime. When

modeling precipitation, the most commonly combination of predictor variables were relative and specific humidity at 500 hPa, surface airflow

strength, 850 hPa zonal velocity and 500 hPa geopotential height. For modeling temperature, mean sea level pressure, surface vorticity and

850 hPa geopotential height were the most dominant variables. To evaluate the performance of the statistical downscaling approach, several

climatic and statistical indices were developed. Results indicate that the agreement of simulations with observations depends on the GCMs at-

mospheric variables used as ‘‘predictors’’ in the regression-based approach, and the performance of the statistical downscaling model varies for

different stations and seasons. The comparison of SDSM and ASD models indicated that neither could perform well for all seasons and months.

However, using different statistical downscaling models and multi-sources GCMs data can provide a better range of uncertainty for climatic and

statistical indices.

Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Climate change; Statistical downscaling; GCM; Multiple regression; Eastern Canada

lution of GCMs is too coarse to resolve regional scale effect

Climate change scenarios developed from Global Climate and to be used directly in local impact studies. Downscaling

Models (GCMs) are the initial source of information for techniques offer an alternative to improve regional or local es-

timates of variables from GCM outputs.

Downscaling methods, as reviewed in Wilby and Wigley

* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ11 98 341 322 0054. (1997) and more recently in Wilby et al. (2004) and Mearns

E-mail address: masoud.hessami@gmail.com (M. Hessami). et al. (2003), were divided into four general categories: regression

1364-8152/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2007.10.004

814 M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834

methods (Hewitson and Crane, 1996; Wilby et al., 1999), weather the following two steps: precipitation occurrence and precipita-

pattern approaches (Yarnal et al., 2001), stochastic weather gen- tion amounts, as described in Wilby et al. (1999):

erators (Richardson, 1981; Racsko et al., 1991; Semenov and Bar-

X

n X

n

row, 1997; Bates et al., 1998) and limited-area Regional Climate Oi ¼ a0 þ aj pij ; R0:25 ¼ b0 þ bj pij þ ei ð1Þ

i

Models (RCMs, Mearns et al., 1995). Among these approaches, j¼1 j¼1

regression methods are regularly used because of their ease of im-

plementation and their low computation requirements. Statistical where Oi is the daily precipitation occurrence, Ri are daily pre-

downscaling is based on the fundamental assumption that re- cipitation amounts, pij are predictors, n is number of predic-

gional climate is conditioned by the local physiographic charac- tors, a and b are model parameters and ei is modeling error.

teristics as well as the large scale atmospheric state. Based on this The modeling of daily temperature is performed in one step:

assumption, large scale climate fields are related to local variables

X

n

through a statistical model in which GCM simulations are used as Ti ¼ g0 þ gj pij þ ei ð2Þ

input for the large scale atmospheric variables (or ‘‘predictors’’) j¼1

to downscale the local climate variables (or ‘‘predictands’’) with

the use of observed meteorological data. The major weaknesses of where Ti is the daily temperature (maximum, minimum or

statistical downscaling methods are that the fundamental assump- mean) and g is the model parameter. Once the deterministic

tion on which they are based is not verifiable, i.e. the statistical re- component is obtained, the residual term ei is modeled under

lationships developed for the present day climate also hold under the assumption that it follows a Gaussian distribution:

different forcing conditions of plausible future climate (Wilby rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

et al., 2004), and they cannot explicitly describe the physical pro- VIF

ei ¼ z i Se þ b ð3Þ

cesses that affect climate. In spite of these limitations, these 12

methods may be helpful for impact studies in heterogeneous envi-

where zi is a normally distributed random number, Se is the

ronments (see for example the recent study of Dibike et al., 2007

standard error of estimate, b is the model bias and VIF is

and Gachon and Dibike, 2007, in coastline areas of northern Can-

the variance inflation factor. For calibrating the model,

ada), and/or for generating large ensembles or transient scenarios.

NCEP (National Center for Environmental Prediction, e.g.

In our study, the statistical downscaling regression-based

Kalnay et al., 1996) reanalysis data must be used. When using

methods, namely the SDSM model developed by Wilby et al.

NCEP data for scenario generation, VIF and b are, respec-

(2002) and a new tool mainly developed to improve the proce-

tively, set to the 12 and 0. When using GCM data for scenario

dure in the selection of predictors, are assessed to reconstruct

generation, the VIF and the bias can be set automatically using

the observed climate based extremes (from temperature and pre-

the following equations:

cipitation variables only, over the 1961e1990 period), in eastern

Canada. The main purpose of this study is to develop and to test b ¼ Mobs Md ð4Þ

a tool capable of performing statistical downscaling automati-

cally from predictor selection to model calibration, scenario 12ðVobs Vd Þ

generation and statistical analysis of scenarios. VIF ¼ ð5Þ

S2e

In Section 2, the mathematical formulation of an automated

statistical downscaling (ASD) model is presented, followed by where Vobs is the variance of observation during calibration pe-

Section 3 showing the methodology focussed on model evalu- riod, Vd is the variance of deterministic part of model output

ation criteria, the study area, data and predictors selection. The during calibration period, Se is the standard error, Mobs and

results are then presented in Section 4 in using both the NCEP Md are the mean of observation and the mean of deterministic

(National Centre for Environmental Prediction) and two series part of model output during calibration period, respectively.

of GCMs daily predictors. Section 6 presents the main conclu-

sions and recommendations concerning the assessment of the 2.1. Regression methods

two statistical downscaling methods (i.e. namely the formal

ASD and the original regression method SDSM) studied here. Regression-based downscaling methods often use multiple

linear regressions, however, the non-orthogonality of the pre-

2. Automated statistical downscaling dictor vectors can make the least squares estimates of the re-

gression coefficients unstable. In addition to multiple linear

An automated regression-based statistical downscaling regressions, the present model gives the possibility to use

(ASD) model, inspired by the existing statistical downscaling the ridge regression (Hoerl and Kennard, 1970) to alleviate

model (SDSM developed by Wilby et al., 2002), was developed the effect of the non-orthogonality of the predictor vectors.

under the Matlab environment (The Mathworks, 2002). Figs. 1 In this approach, a small bias is introduced to provide more

and 2 show the main menu and the general scheme of the ASD stable estimators (Hoerl and Kennard, 1970). When collinear-

framework to generate climate scenario information, respec- ity exists, for small perturbations in data, the estimates pro-

tively. The model process can be conditional on the occurrence vided by ridge regression are more robust than ordinary least

of an event (i.e. for precipitation) or unconditional (i.e. for tem- squares (OLS) estimates. The predictor variables should be

perature). Hence, the modeling of daily precipitation involves first standardized to have zero mean and unit variance (the

M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834 815

future climate predictors are standardized using the mean and of the ridge parameter is often done by iteration and can be

variance of the current climate predictors). somewhat subjective. Hoerl and Kennard (1970) suggest the

The ridge regression coefficients a for the linear model following guidelines:

y ¼ Xa þ e can be calculated from:

- Plot values of k as a function of a (the so-called ridge

1

a ¼ ðXt X þ kIÞ X t y ð6Þ trace). Identify the k value for which the system stabilizes.

The associated a values provide the general character of an

where I is an identity matrix and k is the ridge parameter. orthogonal system.

When k ¼ 0, a is the least squares estimator. The selection

Set NCEP

Predictand

model configuration predictors

stepwise regression / partial correlation

Calibrate model

using NCEP data VIF and bias predictors

Generate scenarios

using GCM data

Results evaluation

816 M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834

- Coefficients should have reasonable absolute values. The probability of the t-statistic indicates whether the observed

- Coefficients with improper signs at k ¼ 0 will have correlation occurred by chance if the true correlation is zero.

changed to have proper signs (e.g. positive for positive cor- In the SDSM model, a recursive algorithm is implemented

relation between predictor and predictand). to compute partial correlation using Eq. (9). This recursive al-

- The residual sum of squares will not have been inflated to gorithm has a limitation, i.e. when the partial correlation be-

an unreasonable value. tween two variables is computed, the maximum number of

controlling variables is 12. However, the number of NCEP pre-

2.2. Predictor selection methods dictors used for partial correlation analysis is usually more

than 20 (as suggested in Tables 1 and 2 for NCEP predictors

In SDSM (Wilby et al., 2002), selection of predictors is an interpolated on the two grids of GCMs, which are used in

iterative process, partly based on the user’s subjective judg- the following for GCMs based evaluation predictors). In

ment. In the present model, we have implemented two ASD, to control this limitation and fast computation, the fol-

methods based on backward stepwise regression (McCuen, lowing algorithm is used for partial correlation analysis. We

2003) and partial correlation coefficients to select the predic- compute first the residuals of regressing the response variable

tors. Backward stepwise regression starts with all the terms y against the independent variables x2, x3, ., xm:

in the model and removes the least significant terms until all

the remaining terms are statistically significant. The partial y ¼ f1 ðx2 ; x3 ; .; xm Þ ð11Þ

F-test which can be used for either adding a predictor to the

equation containing q 1 variables or removing a predictor and then we compute the residuals from regressing x1 against

from the equation containing q variables is: the independent variables x2, x3, ., xm:

x1 ¼ f2 ðx2 ; x3 ; .; xm Þ ð12Þ

R2q R2q1 ðn q 1Þ

F¼ ð7Þ The correlation between y and x1 controlling x2, x3, ., xm is

1 R2q obtained by computing the correlation between the residuals

of the two linear models f1 and f2.

where n is the number of observations, Rq and Rq 1 are cor-

relation coefficients between the criterion variable and a pre- 3. Methodology

diction equation having q and q 1 variables, respectively.

3.1. Model evaluation diagnostic criteria

If F is greater than the critical F value, the predictor should

be included in the equation. The critical F value is defined A core of 11 extremes and climate variability indices has been developed

for a given level of significance and degrees of freedom 1 for Québec regions in considering their usefulness in the context of Nordic cli-

and n q 1. A Bonferroni correction (Bonferroni, 1936) is mate (e.g. Gachon et al., 2005), and to analyze frequency, intensity and dura-

used for the level of significance using the following formula: tion related to extremes of precipitation and temperature. These indices have

been used to document the recent observed climate variability related to the

a1q precipitation and the temperature regime evolution (i.e. over the 1941e2000

a¼1 1 ð8Þ period), and to assess the performance of the statistical downscaling results

2 to reconstruct the current observed period 1961e1990. These provide informa-

tion on mean and extreme climate for the meteorological stations used in this

where a is the level of significance and q is the number of pre-

dictor in the equation. The partial F-test must be computed for

every predictor at each step of stepwise regression. Table 1

NCEP predictor variables on CGCM1 grid

Partial correlation is the correlation between two variables

after removing the linear effect of the third or more other vari- No. Predictors No. Predictors

ables. The partial correlation between variable i and j while 1 Mean sea level pressure 14 500 hPa divergence

controlling for third variable k is (e.g. Afifi and Clark, 1996): 2 Surface airflow strength 15 850 hPa airflow strength

3 Surface zonal velocity 16 850 hPa zonal velocity

Rij Rik Rjk 4 Surface meridional velocity 17 850 hPa meridional velocity

Rij;k ¼ qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

ﬃ ð9Þ 5 Surface vorticity 18 850 hPa vorticity

1 R2ik 1 R2jk 6 Surface wind direction 19 850 hPa geopotential height

7 Surface divergence 20 850 hPa wind direction

8 500 hPa airflow strength 21 850 hPa divergence

where Rij is the correlation coefficient between variables i and j. 9 500 hPa zonal velocity 22 Near surface

For partial correlation method, the p-value is used for eliminat- relative humidity

ing any one of the predictors. The p-value is computed by trans- 10 500 hPa meridional velocity 23 Specific humidity

forming the correlation R to create a t-statistic having n 2 at 500 hPa

degrees of freedom, where n is the number of observations: 11 500 hPa vorticity 24 Specific humidity

at 850 hPa

12 500 hPa geopotential height 25 Near surface

R specific humidity

t ¼ qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ ð10Þ 13 500 hPa wind direction 26 Mean temperature

1R2

n2 at 2 m

M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834 817

Table 2 In addition to these indices, we have computed the mean and the standard

NCEP predictor variables on HadCM3 grid deviation of observed and simulated monthly values during calibration (1961e

No. Predictors No. Predictors 1975) and validation (1976e1990) periods, for total precipitation, maximum,

minimum and mean temperature.

1 Mean sea level pressure 14 500 hPa divergence

2 Surface airflow strength 15 850 hPa airflow strength

3 Surface zonal velocity 16 850 hPa zonal velocity 3.2. Study area, data and predictors selection

4 Surface meridional velocity 17 850 hPa meridional velocity

5 Surface vorticity 18 850 hPa vorticity Fig. 3 shows the area over eastern Canada where the studied stations are

6 Surface wind direction 19 850 hPa geopotential height located. We have focused on the following stations located around the Labra-

7 Surface divergence 20 850 hPa wind direction dor Sea and the Gulf of St. Lawrence: Cartwright, Goose bay, Kuujjuaq,

8 500 hPa airflow strength 21 850 hPa divergence Schefferville, Causapscal, Daniel Harbour, Gaspé, Mont-Joli, Natashquan

9 500 hPa zonal velocity 22 Relative humidity and Sept-Îles. For statistical downscaling, we have used the following data:

at 500 hPa the daily meteorological data from Environment Canada stations, i.e. maxi-

10 500 hPa meridional velocity 23 Relative humidity mum, minimum and mean temperature, and precipitation, corresponding to

at 850 hPa homogenized and rehabilitated values developed by Vincent and Mekiz (e.g.

11 500 hPa vorticity 24 Near surface Vincent et al., 2002; Vincent and Mékis, 2004) as predictands and three series

relative humidity of daily normalized predictors, from NCEP reanalysis and from two GCMs in-

12 500 hPa geopotential height 25 Surface specific humidity dependent outputs (i.e. CGCM1 and HadCM3), for the period of 1961e1990.

13 500 hPa wind direction 26 Mean temperature The availability of two series of GCM predictors constitutes an opportunity to

at 2 m test the two statistical models in using two independent data, and to evaluate

the uncertainties of the results associated with two GCM structures and

paper (see their location over eastern Canada in Fig. 3), as well as help to eval- parameterizations.

uate the capacity of the statistical models to downscale both the intensity (re- CGCM1 is the first Generation of the coupled Canadian Global Climate

lated to absolute or relative thresholds), duration and frequency in the Model (e.g. Flato et al., 2000). The atmospheric component of CGCM1 has

precipitation and temperature series rather than monthly totals or mean values. 10 vertical levels and a horizontal resolution of approximately 3.7 of latitude

Tables 3 and 4 show the climatic indices for precipitation and temperature and longitude (about 400 km). HadCM3 is a coupled atmosphereeocean gen-

variables, respectively, which are used as diagnostic criteria to evaluate the eral circulation model developed at the Hadley Centre and described by

performance of statistical downscaling models. Based on daily total precipi- Gordon et al. (2000) and Pope et al. (2000). The atmospheric component of

tation, we use five precipitation indices including percentage of wet days HadCM3 has 19 levels with a horizontal resolution of 2.5 of latitude by

(PRCP1, in that case occurrence was limited to events with amount greater 3.75 of longitude, which is equivalent to a horizontal resolution of about

than or equal to 1 mm to avoid the problem in trace measurement and low 417 278 km at the Equator, reducing to 295 278 km at 45 of latitude.

daily values), mean precipitation amount per wet days (SDII), maximum num- The two GCMs have participated in the CMIP1 (Coupled Model Intercompar-

ber of consecutive dry days (CDD), maximum 3-days precipitation total ison Project, Phase 1) with climate simulations beginning around 1860 or 1900

(R3days) and the 90th percentile of rain day amount (PREC90). Based on (for HadCM3 and CGCM1, respectively) in using historical estimates of

daily minimum and maximum temperature, we use six temperature indices in- greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols concentration (see Table 8.1 in Chap-

cluding the mean of diurnal temperature range (DTR), the frost season length ter 8 and Table 9.1 in Chapter 9, IPCC, 2001). The two runs from CGCM1 and

(FSL), the growing season length (GSL), the percentage of days with freeze HadCM3 come from the first member of the ensemble runs (i.e. 3/1 mem-

and thaw cycle (Fr/Th), the 90th percentile of daily maximum temperature ber(s), for CGCM1/HadCM3).

(Tmax90) and the 10th percentile of daily minimum temperature (Tmin10). The ASD and SDSM models for each station, month and season were run

These indices are presented in more details in Gachon et al. (2005). They using NCEP predictors to calibrate the models before using the two corre-

are modified to correspond to the characteristics of the Québec climate from sponding CGCM1 and HadCM3 predictors properly, over the 1961e1990

the STARDEX (Statistical and Regional dynamical Downscaling of Extremes time-window. Hence, the NCEP series of predictors have been re-gridded,

for European regions) SDEIS climate indices software (Haylock, 2004). i.e. interpolated on the two GCMs grids because the grid-spacing and/or

Fig. 3. Meteorological stations located around the Labrador Sea and the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

818 M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834

Table 3 been found in general. In other words, the interpolation procedure from the

Precipitation indices used to evaluate the performance of statistical downscal- NCEP grid to the GCM grids is more accurate and more physically based,

ing models in spite of the fact that direct intercomparison is not fully viable. However,

Indices Definition Unit Time Scale in general, we use most of the time the same predictors and when the predic-

tors are different they are strongly correlated (see Tables 5e8), i.e. are issued

PRCP1 Percentage of wet days % Season

from the same physical processes, and this does not constitute a major concep-

(threshold 1 mm)

tual problem for the intercomparison of all downscaling results. As shown in

SDII Mean precipitation mm/day Season

the following, the interpolation procedure has weak influence on the predictor

amount at wet days

values and on the downscaling results, with respect to the relevance and the

CDD Maximum number Days Season

reliability of the raw GCM predictors, which plays the key role in the accuracy

of consecutive dry days

of the downscaled variables (see for example, the recent results of Dibike

R3days Maximum 3-days precipitation total mm Season

et al., 2007, using two independent GCMs predictor series).

PREC90 90th percentile mm Season

For each station, five predictor variables were selected using a stepwise re-

of rain day amount

gression. Prior to the stepwise regression, the predictor variables 22 (near sur-

face relative humidity, see Table 1), 25 (near surface specific humidity) and 26

(mean temperature at 2 m) have been removed from NCEP data interpolated

coordinate systems of reanalysis data sets do not correspond to those of the on CGCM1 grid (in order to avoid the problem in using the equivalent predic-

two GCM outputs (for example the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis has a grid-spacing tor variables from CGCM1 output in which strong biases have been docu-

of 2.5 latitude by 2.5 longitude instead of the grid-spacing of CGCM1 and mented in early and end of the winter, due to the simplistic bucket model in

HadCM3 as previously mentioned). It is a reason why two series of statistical this version of the Canadian Model; e.g. IPCC, Chapter 8, 2001). To make

downscaling simulations incorporate the NCEP predictors interpolated on the comparison more consistent, the variables 24 (near surface relative humidity,

two different grids, as suggested in Tables 1 and 2. Re-gridding and verifica- see Table 2), 25 (surface specific humidity) and 26 (mean temperature at

tion of GCM predictors are a necessary part of all statistical downscaling de- 2 m) have been also removed from NCEP data interpolated on HadCM3

velopment (and time-consuming). The interpolation procedure to the GCM grid. Also, we have had access to the specific humidity for the CGCM1 output

grids rather than the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis grid is mainly motivated as rather than the relative humidity for the HadCM3 output.

we use the GCM predictors for the climate change simulations (i.e. the Specific and relative humidity are not interchangeable, but they are

main issues for downscaling methods used to developed high resolution cli- strongly correlated. As the two are highly correlated to the occurrence of pre-

mate scenarios), and raw GCM information must be preserved for the down- cipitation, as their synchronous variation is dependent to the saturated phase of

scaling process. As regularly used in SDSM, the interpolation has been carried water vapour in the air, the use of relative or specific humidity gives the same

out in this manner since we have more confidence in finer resolution data in- results for the downscaling of precipitation. Hence, no differences are found

terpolated to a coarser resolution than we do in interpolating coarse-resolution depending on which is chosen (this may not be the case for future climate pro-

(i.e. GCM) data to a finer resolution. In doing the reverse interpolation, i.e. jection). In fact, the combination of humidity variables at different levels is

from the coarser GCM grid to the finer NCEP/NCAR grid, an ‘‘artificial’’ more often important for the precipitation process (occurrence and intensity)

higher resolution set of predictor variables is generated with high risk to create than the single value of humidity taken individually at only one level.

an unreliable physical information especially over high gradient in atmo- The downscaling model parameters were obtained by multiple linear re-

spheric values (i.e. part issued from the interpolation process). Also, this inter- gressions with separate regressions for each month using daily observed and

polation procedure must be realized both for the current and for the future predictors data. Table 5 shows that the most commonly used predictor vari-

periods. Hence, this process modifies the original GCM predictor without ables for precipitation modeling are specific/relative humidity at 500 hPa, sur-

any potential added values and/or physical changes, i.e. not fully representa- face airflow strength, 500 hPa geopotential height and 850 hPa zonal velocity.

tive of the atmospheric circulation changes simulated by the GCM at its orig- For modeling temperature, mean sea level pressure, surface vorticity and

inal resolution. 850 hPa geopotential height seem to be the most important predictor variables,

Gachon et al. (2005) have analyzed in detail the results from the NCEP which are physically plausible because those are strongly associated to strong

driven statistical downscaling models with the two series of predictors interpo- modification of temperature characteristics in the boundary layer (see Tables

lated on the HadCM3 and CGCM1 grids, and no significant differences have 6e8), through the thermal advection term.

For stability and robustness of the downscaling results (see Gachon et al.,

2005), for each application of ASD and SDSM models, 100 simulations were

Table 4 performed to produce 100 synthetic series of daily precipitation and mean,

Temperature indices used to evaluate the performance of statistical downscal- minimum and maximum temperature. Differences between these 100 realiza-

ing models tions do not reflect the full range of internal variability because only the sto-

Indices Definition Unit Time Scale chastic component differs between each run. The deterministic component (i.e.

controlled by the atmospheric variables) follows the same evolution in each

DTR Mean of diurnal C Season run because only one realization of the predictor variables at daily scale exists

temperature range in each case (either the NCEP or GCMs data).

FSL Frost season Days Year Each downscaled series is accumulated into monthly totals and averaged

length: Tmin < 0 C more over the 100 realizations, and then compared in the following with the ob-

than 5 days served series for climate mean and standard deviation variables. For climate

and Tmin > 0 C more indices evaluation, each series is accumulated into monthly, seasonal or yearly

than 5 days totals (according to the considered time scale of each indices, see Tables 3 and 4).

GSL Growing season Days Year All the 100 realizations are then compared with the observed series to evaluate

length: Tmean > 5 C more the range of the stochastic component (i.e. to analyze the spreading and out-

than 5 days liers in the results with the aid of box plot graphs). The comparison is per-

and Tmean < 5 C more formed over the period of ASD and SDSM calibration (1961e1975) and

than 5 days over an independent verification/validation period (1976e1990), using two se-

FreTh Days with Days Month ries of NCEP predictors (i.e. same atmospheric fields but interpolated on the

freeze and thaw two GCMs grids as mentioned previously). For the downscaling values using

cycle (Tmax > 0 C, Tmin < 0 C) GCMs predictors, the complete period 1961e1990 is used to compare all re-

Tmax90 90th percentile of daily Tmax C Season sults. The criteria for results comparison are computing the amount of model

Tmin10 10th percentile of daily Tmin C Season explained variance (R2) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) for the

M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834 819

Table 5

Results of ASD model calibration (1961e1975) for precipitation using NCEP predictors interpolated on the CGCM1 and on the HadCM3 grids

Station CGCM1 grid HadCM3 grid

2 2

Predictors R R (ridge) Predictors R2 R2 (ridge)

Cartwright 3 5 9 11 23 0.24 0.32 3 5 12 19 22 0.27 0.33

Goose bay 3 9 10 15 23 0.24 0.31 3 12 15 17 22 0.23 0.33

Kuujjuaq 2 8 15 16 23 0.22 0.33 2 12 16 19 22 0.22 0.33

Schefferville 2 16 17 18 23 0.32 0.37 2 9 12 16 19 0.25 0.34

Causapascal 7 9 16 21 23 0.13 0.20 9 12 16 17 22 0.15 0.21

Daniel Harbour 2 11 12 18 23 0.20 0.27 2 11 15 18 22 0.20 0.27

Gaspé 3 9 10 14 17 0.17 0.27 12 17 19 22 23 0.18 0.30

Mont-Joli 2 9 16 17 23 0.21 0.27 2 9 12 16 22 0.17 0.31

Natashquan 2 12 16 17 23 0.26 0.35 10 12 16 17 22 0.31 0.36

Sept-Îles 5 9 12 16 23 0.24 0.38 2 5 9 16 22 0.22 0.40

For each predictor, the number refers to the atmospheric variables defined in Tables 1 and 2 (for each respective GCM grid).

estimated statistics and climatic indices. ASD takes the output of each monthly 0.31 (Natashquan) for NCEP data on HadCM3 grid (Table 5).

simulation and corresponding monthly observation, and then computes the These relatively low explained variances underline the diffi-

mean amount of explained variance. For computing RMSE, the observed

and estimated indices are averaged at the respective time scale over the 100

culty to downscale the precipitation regime compared to the

simulations. temperature. However, in the case of daily rainfall, any posi-

tive explained variance is valuable, as this corresponds to a cor-

relation between 0.36 and 0.56, which for daily climatic time

4. Results series is quite respectable, in particular considering the stochas-

tic character of daily rainfall. In the case of temperature, the

Before analyzing the results with GCMs predictors, the se- high values of explained variance (>89%; see Tables 6e8) in-

ries downscaled from the NCEP predictors are needed to eval- dicate the greater skill to downscale the temperature regime

uate the performance of the ASD and the SDSM models in than for precipitation.

comparison with the observed precipitation and temperature Using the same set of five predictors selected by the ASD

series, for both the calibration and the validation periods model illustrated in Tables 5e8, an example of the results of

(i.e. cross-validation procedure), as shown in Section 4.1. model calibration with SDSM is given for Schefferville station

(not shown in a table). For this station, when using NCEP data

4.1. Calibration (1961e1975) and validation (1976e on CGCM1 grid, the amounts of explained variance (R2) are

1990) using NCEP predictors 0.18, 0.77, 0.82 and 0.65 for precipitation, maximum temper-

ature, mean temperature and minimum temperature, respec-

Over all stations, Tables 5e8 summarize the results of tively. These values are slightly different when using NCEP

model calibration with the ASD model (over the period data on HadCM3 grid (0.12, 0.76, 0.76 and 0.64). Hence, as

1961e1975) for precipitation, maximum, minimum and suggested in Tables 5e8, ASD provides higher values for

mean temperature using NCEP predictors interpolated on the the amounts of explained variance than SDSM. The difference

CGCM1 and on the HadCM3 grids. For the downscaling of between the amounts of explained variance is that SDSM com-

precipitation, the amount of explained variance (R2) varies putes a mean value of the amounts of explained variance over

from 0.13 (Causapscal) to 0.32 (Schefferville) for NCEP 12 months, but ASD takes the output of 12 monthly models

data on CGCM1 grid and it varies from 0.15 (Causapscal) to and corresponding observations, and then computes the

Table 6

Results of ASD model calibration (1961e1975) for maximum temperature using NCEP predictors interpolated on the CGCM1 and on the HadCM3 grids

Station CGCM1 grid HadCM3 grid

2 2

Predictors R R (ridge) Predictors R2 R2 (ridge)

Cartwright 1 4 5 17 19 0.91 0.94 1 5 17 18 19 0.89 0.93

Goose bay 1 5 6 15 19 0.95 0.96 1 5 17 18 19 0.93 0.96

Kuujjuaq 1 4 5 19 24 0.95 0.96 1 5 11 18 19 0.94 0.96

Schefferville 1 5 7 18 19 0.96 0.97 1 3 5 16 19 0.95 0.97

Causapascal 1 5 16 18 19 0.95 0.96 1 3 5 16 19 0.95 0.96

Daniel Harbour 1 4 5 15 19 0.94 0.94 1 4 5 15 19 0.94 0.94

Gaspé 1 5 15 18 19 0.93 0.95 1 3 5 16 19 0.94 0.95

Mont-Joli 1 5 10 18 19 0.94 0.96 1 3 5 12 19 0.95 0.96

Natashquan 1 5 15 18 19 0.93 0.95 1 5 7 17 19 0.94 0.94

Sept-Îles 1 5 15 18 19 0.93 0.96 1 5 12 18 19 0.93 0.96

For each predictor, the number refers to the atmospheric variables defined in Tables 1 and 2 (for each respective GCM grid).

820 M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834

Table 7

Results of ASD model calibration (1961e1975) for mean temperature using NCEP predictors interpolated on the CGCM1 and on the HadCM3 grids

Station CGCM1 grid HadCM3 grid

2 2

Predictors R R (ridge) Predictors R2 R2 (ridge)

Cartwright 1 4 5 18 19 0.93 0.95 1 5 7 17 19 0.94 0.95

Goose bay 1 5 15 18 19 0.96 0.97 1 5 7 17 19 0.95 0.97

Kuujjuaq 1 5 18 19 24 0.96 0.97 1 3 5 19 23 0.96 0.97

Schefferville 1 3 5 16 19 0.97 0.98 1 3 5 18 19 0.96 0.97

Causapascal 1 5 12 18 19 0.96 0.97 1 3 5 16 19 0.96 0.97

Daniel Harbour 1 5 11 18 19 0.94 0.95 1 5 11 15 19 0.95 0.96

Gaspé 1 5 9 18 19 0.96 0.97 1 3 5 18 19 0.96 0.96

Mont-Joli 1 5 12 18 19 0.96 0.97 1 3 5 16 19 0.96 0.97

Natashquan 1 5 15 18 19 0.95 0.96 1 5 15 17 19 0.95 0.96

Sept-Îles 1 5 15 18 19 0.96 0.97 1 5 16 18 19 0.96 0.97

For each predictor, the number refers to the atmospheric variables defined in Tables 1 and 2 (for each respective GCM grid).

mean amount of explained variance. When using a similar deterministic part of the model), as suggested in the weak

methodology, the amount of explained variances is the same amount of explained variance in Table 5, and the random pro-

for the two models. cess between simulated series is much higher as the reliable

Overall the NCEP data on CGCM1 and HadCM3 grids pro- predictors are less strongly correlated with the precipitation

vide similar results for model calibration, as well as for model as compared to the equivalent ones for temperatures. As also

validation, with only few differences for precipitation and no shown in Table 9, the RMSE for temperature indices is quite

differences for temperature. In order to analyze in more detail weak in all cases, suggesting a strong capacity to downscale

the effect of interpolation of NCEP predictors over the two the temperature variables, with similar performance between

GCMs grids on the downscaling results and the various perfor- SDSM and ASD. As shown in Table 10, few differences exist

mance of the ASD model over the calibration and the valida- in the RMSE values between the validation and the calibration

tion periods, one representative station (i.e. Schefferville) is periods (as shown in Table 9), in spite of slight increase in

used to evaluate RMSE criteria in Tables 9 and 10 (over these RMSE for precipitation indices, but this is not systematic for

two periods, respectively), and through graphical analysis with other indices.

box plots graphs shown in Figs. 4e7. In these last figures, only As show in Figs. 4e7, results for monthly mean values of

results using NCEP predictors interpolated on to the HadCM3 precipitation, and of maximum, mean and minimum tempera-

grid are shown, as Figs. 8e22 using both the two series of tures indicate that ASD replicate observed inter-monthly and

NCEP and of GCMs predictors over the all 1961e1990 period inter-annual variability faithfully, except for precipitation in

are shown and discussed in Section 4.2. January, February and March where strong changes in the var-

As shown in Table 9, the RMSE of the estimated statistics iability (IQR and extreme values) are not well captured by the

and climatic indices for the calibration period is quite similar model. For other months and in particular for temperatures,

between the two series of results with NCEP predictors inter- the performance of the ASD model is almost as good over

polated over the two GCMs grids, with negligible differences the verification/validation period as it is over the calibration

in most cases (mainly below 0.5 for all indices and maximum period, indicating that the empirical model has not been overfit

of 2 days for FSL). The slight differences appear for precipi- to the data (i.e. due mainly to the following factors: number

tation amount and occurrence (i.e. wet days) as the stochastic and type of selected predictors, statistical model, stability of

part is much higher in that case (i.e. compared to the the relationships between predictand/predictors according to

Table 8

Results of ASD model calibration (1961e1975) for minimum temperature using NCEP predictors interpolated on the CGCM1 and on the HadCM3 grids

Station CGCM1 grid HadCM3 grid

2 2

Predictors R R (ridge) Predictors R2 R2 (ridge)

Cartwright 1 5 16 18 19 0.91 0.93 1 5 7 15 19 0.90 0.93

Goose bay 1 5 15 18 19 0.94 0.95 1 5 15 18 19 0.93 0.95

Kuujjuaq 1 5 11 18 19 0.94 0.96 1 3 5 19 23 0.94 0.96

Schefferville 1 3 5 15 19 0.94 0.95 1 5 18 19 23 0.94 0.95

Causapscal 1 3 5 9 19 0.91 0.93 1 2 5 19 23 0.92 0.93

Daniel Harbour 1 5 7 19 21 0.91 0.92 1 5 17 19 23 0.91 0.92

Gaspé 1 3 5 18 19 0.92 0.94 1 3 5 18 19 0.92 0.94

Mont-Joli 1 5 9 18 19 0.94 0.95 1 3 5 16 19 0.94 0.95

Natashquan 1 2 5 18 19 0.93 0.94 1 2 5 17 19 0.93 0.94

Sept-Îles 1 5 16 18 19 0.95 0.96 1 5 16 19 23 0.95 0.96

For each predictor, the number refers to the atmospheric variables defined in Tables 1 and 2 (for each respective GCM grid).

M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834 821

RMSE of the estimated statistics and climatic indices during calibration period climatic indices using CGCM1 and HadCM3 predictors:

at Schefferville based on NCEP predictors (interpolated on the CGCM1 and

HadCM3 grids)

example at Schefferville station

CGCM1 grid HadCM3 grid

One representative station is also used in this section to il-

SDSM ASD SDSM ASD lustrate the results from ASD and SDSM in using GCMs pre-

Mean prec. (mm/day) 0.29 0.16 0.41 0.15 dictors, and in comparing the RMSE values as well as box

STD prec. (mm/day) 0.53 0.37 0.71 0.40 plots graphs of basic variables and climate indices with respect

PRCP1 (%) 4.49 5.14 4.00 4.76

SDII (mm/wet day) 1.59 0.44 1.58 0.42

to observed data over the complete 1961e1990 period. In the

CDD (day) 0.98 0.78 1.10 0.87 box plots graphs, the results in using NCEP predictors are also

R3days (mm) 3.13 4.30 3.32 4.89 included as a reference for this baseline period (i.e. calibra-

PREC90 (mm/day) 1.95 0.72 2.10 0.96 tion/validation in a reanalysis mode), and compared with

Mean Tmax ( C) 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 results driven by GCMs (i.e. evaluation in a climate mode).

STD Tmax ( C) 0.14 0.09 0.15 0.08

Mean Tmin ( C) 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01

Figs. 8e11 compare the monthly observed and estimated

STD Tmin ( C) 0.43 0.33 0.20 0.20 mean and standard deviation of precipitation and tempera-

Mean Tmean ( C) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 tures, and Figs. 12e22 compare the seasonal or annual ob-

STD Tmean ( C) 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.11 served and estimated values of climate indices. Table 11

DTR ( C) 0.48 0.43 0.52 0.55 provides the RMSE criteria from SDSM and ASD results

FSLs (day) 3.62 3.54 1.23 1.65

GSL (day) 2.31 2.60 1.82 2.07

based on GCMs predictors (both CGCM1 and HadCM3) for

FreTh (day) 0.90 0.91 0.85 0.83 each basic variable and climate index.

Tmax90 ( C) 0.19 0.22 0.25 0.24 For basic variables (monthly mean and standard deviation

Tmin10 ( C) 0.41 0.38 0.37 0.32 of precipitation and temperature shown in Figs. 8e11), the

performance of models can vary on a month-to-month basis.

different climate regimes and collinearity between predictors). However, for temperature, the results with SDSM and ASD

However, the spreading of high extreme values in the ASD re- are more often better with HadCM3 predictors than those us-

sults for precipitation with respect to observed data suggests ing CGCM1 (as shown in Figs. 9e11). As noted earlier, the

a well known problem of poorest representation of extreme NCEP driven downscaling results for temperature are not de-

events and observed variability from regression-based statisti- pendent on the interpolation process over the two GCMs grids,

cal downscaling method in particular for precipitation (e.g. neither on the downscaling models. For precipitation, the per-

Wilby et al., 2004), as for SDSM (see Gachon et al., 2005). formance is equivalent between the two downscaling models

For temperatures, including extreme values, ASD performs as in the recent study of Gachon et al. (2005). In that case,

relatively well (box plots not shown) with similar results com- all results are similar in terms of median and IQR estimated

pared to the SDSM model (see the RMSE in Tables 9 and 10). values in using NCEP or GCMs predictors, with over-spread-

ing in extremes of daily precipitation as shown in Fig. 8.

For the climate indices of precipitation, the percentages of

Table 10

RMSE of the estimated statistics and climatic indices during validation period

wet days (PRCP1) calculated by season have median observed

at Schefferville based on NCEP predictors (interpolated on the CGCM1 and values varying between 26 and 49 days (Fig. 12). Most of the

HadCM3 grids) simulated time series from GCMs predictors underestimated

CGCM1 grid HadCM3 grid the median observed percentage during all four seasons, ex-

SDSM ASD SDSM ASD

cept in winter with ASD and in summer with both SDSM

and ASD driven all by HadCM3 predictors. In general, the

Mean prec. (mm/day) 0.41 0.56 0.79 0.57

STD prec. (mm/day) 0.68 0.91 0.96 1.01

only simulated values that appear to be less biased were the

PRCP1 (%) 5.72 6.68 7.51 6.05 ASD model using these predictors (model 9 in Fig. 12) during

SDII (mm/wet day) 1.16 0.39 1.43 0.45 the winter, spring and autumn. Box and whiskers plots in

CDD (day) 0.62 0.63 1.61 0.42 Fig. 12 also show that the simulated values generally have

R3days (mm) 4.44 9.58 7.58 11.56 a greater variance than the observed values, with excessive

PREC90 (mm) 1.26 1.72 2.47 2.07

Mean Tmax ( C) 0.40 0.40 0.48 0.49

outliers in general. In most cases, comparable skill is obtained

STD Tmax ( C) 0.36 0.32 0.24 0.21 between NCEP driven conditions and in using GCMs predic-

Mean Tmin ( C) 0.55 0.52 0.35 0.33 tors. Fig. 13 shows that for simple daily intensity index (SDII)

STD Tmin ( C) 0.48 0.39 0.30 0.34 all models driven by GCMs overestimated the median values

Mean Tmean ( C) 0.36 0.35 0.37 0.35 for all seasons with bias on the order of 2 mm/wet day. Over

STD Tmean ( C) 0.23 0.22 0.25 0.22

DTR ( C) 0.24 0.20 0.58 0.64

all seasons, the ASD model tends to outperform SDSM in us-

FSLs (day) 6.62 6.82 5.60 4.54 ing NCEP predictors as no systematic higher skill is suggested

GSL (day) 4.78 3.97 2.97 2.07 from GCMs downscaling results. Also, systematic outliers in

FreTh (day) 0.94 0.88 0.80 0.77 estimated values of SDII are suggested from all downscaling

Tmax90 ( C) 0.40 0.45 0.12 0.22 results. For the maximum number of consecutive dry days

Tmin10 ( C) 0.89 0.86 0.77 0.78

(CDD shown in Fig. 14), median values of observation and

822 M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834

Fig. 4. Box plots of mean for monthly precipitation model using 100 simulations based on NCEP predictors interpolated on HadCM3 at Schefferville, over the

calibration (1961e1975) and the validation (1976e1990) periods. The red lines represent the median values, the Interquartile Range (IQR, i.e. 25th and 75th quar-

tiles) is represented by boxes and 1.5 IQR by whiskers. The red crosses correspond to outliers. (For interpretation of the references to colour in figure legends,

the reader is refered to the web version of this article).

-10 4

-10 2

-5

Mean (ºC)

0

-15 -2

-20 -10 -4

-20 -6

-15 -8

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

18 20 20

10

16

Mean (ºC)

8 14

6 12 15

4 15

10

2 8

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

15 6 -2

-10

Mean (ºC)

4 -4

10 2 -6 -15

0 -8

-20

-2 -10

5

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

2-ASD (1961-1975) 4-ASD (1976-1990)

Fig. 5. Box plots of mean for monthly maximum temperature model using 100 simulations based on NCEP predictors interpolated on HadCM3 at Schefferville,

over the calibration (1961e1975) and the validation (1976e1990) periods.

M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834 823

-15 -10

Mean (ºC)

-20 -5

-20 -15

-10

-25 -20

-30

-15

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

6 15

14

4

Mean (ºC)

10

2 12

0

10

-2 5 10 8

-4

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

4 -10

10 -5

2

Mean (ºC)

0

-10 -20

-2

5

-4

-6 -15 -30

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

2-ASD (1961-1975) 4-ASD (1976-1990)

Fig. 6. Box plots of mean for monthly mean temperature model using 100 simulations based on NCEP predictors interpolated on HadCM3 at Schefferville, over the

calibration (1961e1975) and the validation (1976e1990) periods.

-20

-20

Mean (ºC)

-10

-20

-30 -30

-20

-30

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

2 6 10

0

Mean (ºC)

-2 4 8

-4 2

-6 6 5

-8 0

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

6 -15

0

Mean (ºC)

4 -10 -20

-2

2 -4 -25

-15

-6 -30

0

-8 -20 -35

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

2-ASD (1961-1975) 4-ASD (1976-1990)

Fig. 7. Box plots of mean for monthly minimum temperature model using 100 simulations based on NCEP predictors interpolated on HadCM3 at Schefferville,

over the calibration (1961e1975) and the validation (1976e1990) periods.

824 M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834

Fig. 8. Box plots of mean and standard deviation for monthly precipitation models during 1961e1990 at Schefferville.

simulation time series only differ by 1e2 days in most cases, index (R3days) with an underestimation of the median values

and no important bias in the simulated values is apparent. for spring season by all models using CGCM1 predictors and

However, in all cases, both ASD and SDSM overestimate with an overestimation of extremes in all seasons and what-

the highest values of CDD with also excessive outliers. ever driven conditions or downscaling models. Median values

Also, all downscaling results are quite similar with no obvious of the 90th percentile of observed daily rain amounts

better skill with NCEP driven conditions compared to GCMs (PREC90), shown in Fig. 16, are generally well reproduced

ones. Fig. 15 shows the maximum 3-days precipitation total with a maximum bias of 4 mm/day (with SDSM using

M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834 825

Fig. 9. Box plots of mean and standard deviation for monthly maximum temperature models during 1961e1990 at Schefferville.

HadCM3 predictors in summer season). All models overesti- all results whatever the driving conditions, i.e. NCEP or

mated the median spring, summer and autumn values. All ob- GCMs.

served values were below 24 mm, irrespective of season, and For the climate indices of temperature, Fig. 17 shows that

singular simulated values over this threshold are quite com- the median of the diurnal temperature range (DTR) is well re-

mon (with outliers ranging between 19 and 40 mm), suggest- produced with a 0e3 C bias in the simulated values com-

ing a strong dispersion from the stochastic component of the pared to the observed ones, except poorest results with

two models. Again no obvious differences are suggested in SDSM over summer, and with SDSM and ASD over winter

826 M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834

Fig. 10. Box plots of mean and standard deviation for monthly minimum temperature models during 1961e1990 at Schefferville.

driven, respectively, by CGCM1 and HadCM3. Generally in lowest values. Fig. 19 shows the observed median value of the

winter, the two models overestimate the DTR, both in median GSL index was around 100 days whereas the simulated values

and higher values. Fig. 18 shows the observed and simulated were 90, 110, 108 and 105 days for SDSM (CGCM1), ASD

frost season length index, relatively well reproduced by ASD (CGCM1), SDSM (HadCM3) and ASD (HadCM3), respec-

and SDSM models for the median values. Here, SDSM using tively. All downscaling series overestimate the variability with

CGCM1 data provides poorest estimation of FSL indices. the poorest results coming from SDSM driven by CGCM1,

However, all simulated indices overestimate the variability with strong shift of the statistical distribution (mainly lower

with respect to the observed one, as well as the number of values than observed). In that case, ASD strongly improves

M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834 827

Fig. 11. Box plots of mean and standard deviation for monthly mean temperature models during 1961e1990 at Schefferville.

the corresponding values from the same series of predictors, by that case, strong compatibility from results driven by NCEP for

comparison with SDSM. The observed and simulated FreTh in- both ASD and SDSM is revealed. The 90th percentile of daily

dex shown in Fig. 20 suggests that all models using HadCM3 maximum temperature (Tmax90) shown in Fig. 21 suggests

data provide better estimation for this index, especially with that all models overestimated the winter median, with more of-

the ASD model. The stronger bias appears in winter and in ten the best results simulated by ASD using HadCM3 predictors.

July and August in terms of overestimated variance and singular For the spring, ASD using CGCM1 estimated also very well the

values, where the Frost/Thaw observed cycle is weaker. Also in median value. We can also notice that excessive outliers are

828 M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834

Fig. 12. PRCP1 precipitation index at Schefferville during 1961e1990 using Fig. 14. CDD precipitation index at Schefferville during 1961e1990 using 100

100 simulations based on NCEP and GCM predictors. simulations based on NCEP and GCM predictors.

more common with NCEP driven conditions than with GCMs example, for the summer, SDSM using CGCM1 predictors

ones, especially in spring, summer and fall. Fig. 22 shows that showed a strong bias, with a median of 3.2 C compared to

the 10th percentiles of daily minimum temperature were gener- observed value of 0.7 C. Also, excessive outliers and values

ally well reproduced by SDSM and ASD models, except in win- around 0 C are present in the simulated values of ASD in the

ter, summer and fall when SDSM is driven by CGCM1. For fall season.

Fig. 13. SDII precipitation index at Schefferville during 1961e1990 using 100 Fig. 15. R3days precipitation index at Schefferville during 1961e1990 using

simulations based on NCEP and GCM predictors. 100 simulations based on NCEP and GCM predictors.

M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834 829

300

280

260

FSL(day)

240

220

200

180

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2-SDSM(NCEP on CGCM1 grid) 6-SDSM(CGCM1)

3-ASD(NCEP on CGCM1 grid) 7-ASD(CGCM1)

4-SDSM(NCEP on HADCM3 grid) 8-SDSM(HADCM3)

9-ASD(HADCM3)

Fig. 18. FSLs temperature index at Schefferville during 1961e1990 using 100

simulations based on NCEP and GCM predictors.

Fig. 16. PREC90 precipitation index at Schefferville during 1961e1990 using

100 simulations based on NCEP and GCM predictors.

all results from HadCM3 predictors, ASD gives clearly the

In Table 11, the comparison of RMSE indicates that ASD best results (i.e. lowest RMSE) as suggested also in the box

provides better results in general (i.e. strong majority of the re- plots graphs (Figs. 12e22). For temperature, ASD gives also

sults) than SDSM except for mean precipitation amount and its the best results and strongly improves the biases in extremes

standard deviation, intensity per wet days, consecutive dry compared to SDSM when this model is driven by CGCM1.

days, 90th percentile of rain day amount, standard deviation This reveals the usefulness of Eqs. (4) and (5) to set automat-

of both minimum and maximum temperature and diurnal tem- ically the VIF and the bias when generating scenarios from

perature range, with CGCM1 predictors. For other indices and GCM data by the model whose coefficients are obtained

180

160

140

GSL(day)

120

100

80

60

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2-SDSM(NCEP on CGCM1 grid) 6-SDSM(CGCM1)

3-ASD(NCEP on CGCM1 grid) 7-ASD(CGCM1)

4-SDSM(NCEP on HADCM3 grid) 8-SDSM(HADCM3)

9-ASD(HADCM3)

Fig. 17. DTR temperature index at Schefferville during 1961e1990 using 100 Fig. 19. GSLs temperature index at Schefferville during 1961e1990 using 100

simulations based on NCEP and GCM predictors. simulations based on NCEP and GCM predictors.

830 M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834

Fig. 20. FreTh temperature index at Schefferville during 1961e1990 using 100 simulations based on NCEP and GCM predictors.

Fig. 21. Tmax90 temperature index at Schefferville during 1961e1990 using Fig. 22. Tmin10 temperature index at Schefferville during 1961e1990 using

100 simulations based on NCEP and GCM predictors. 100 simulations based on NCEP and GCM predictors.

M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834 831

RMSE of the estimated statistics and climatic indices during 1961e1990 on CGCM1 grid and the variables 24, 25 and 26 from NCEP

period at Schefferville based on GCMs predictors

data interpolated on HadCM3 grid, as suggested in Section 3.

CGCM1 HadCM3 When using ridge regression, it can be seen from Table 5 that

SDSM ASD SDSM ASD the precipitation model explained variances have been greatly

Mean prec. (mm/day) 0.33 0.41 0.79 0.54 improved. For example when using NCEP data interpolated on

STD prec. (mm/day) 0.52 0.70 1.11 0.60 the HadCM3 grid, the precipitation model explained variance

PRCP1 (%) 6.73 5.05 5.16 3.69 was 0.34 for Schefferville with the use of the ridge regression.

SDII (mm/wet day) 1.19 1.54 2.03 1.43

CDD (day) 0.29 0.58 1.27 0.68

These values were 0.25 when multiple linear regression is used

R3days (mm) 5.24 3.28 8.75 2.25 with five predictors. However, it can be seen from Tables 6e8,

PREC90 (mm) 1.29 1.59 3.12 1.40 slight improvement for temperature models based on ridge

Mean Tmax ( C) 3.40 0.52 1.59 0.74 regression. Hence, the ridge regression mainly improved the

STD Tmax ( C) 0.74 1.06 0.90 0.49 explained variance for the precipitation process in which low

Mean Tmin ( C) 3.22 0.53 0.92 0.67

STD Tmin ( C) 0.56 1.18 0.80 0.30

correlation between predictors and predictand is common,

Mean Tmean ( C) 3.36 0.51 0.98 0.69 with strong probability to have collinearity between predic-

STD Tmean ( C) 0.64 1.09 0.72 0.37 tors, as too many variables and parameters in the model are

DTR ( C) 0.57 1.60 1.29 0.41 highly correlated. Also, it allows the user to implement

FSLs (day) 14.35 2.76 2.95 0.07 a model without discriminating predictors a priori. The user

GSL (day) 11.70 7.19 4.40 3.14

FreTh (day) 3.40 1.40 2.24 1.06

can thus decide to select all predictors or some predictors

Tmax90 ( C) 2.48 0.99 1.50 0.40 based on experience and their physical characteristics without

Tmin10 ( C) 3.13 0.92 1.21 1.16 considering the non-orthogonality, which is inherently taken

into account in the ridge regression algorithm.

are obtained by a skilled user and the best VIF and the bias are 5. Discussion

obtained by trial and error. However, comparable results are

obtained by ASD with ease very quickly. This is an important The choice of predictor variables is one of the most influ-

advantage of ASD. Therefore, as suggested in Table 11 by ential steps in the development of statistical downscaling

comparison with Tables 9 and 10 with NCEP predictors, no scheme (both with automatic and manual selection) because

systematic decrease of performance in using GCMs predictors the decision largely determines the character of the downscal-

instead of NCEP ones, especially for precipitation with similar ing results. It is essential to remember that predictors relevant

performance for mean amount and majority of precipitation to the local predictand should be adequately reproduced by the

indices, whereas the downscaled temperatures and their ex- host climate model at the spatial scales used to condition the

tremes are better simulated by NCEP driven conditions. For downscaled response. Prior knowledge of climate model lim-

standard deviation at monthly scale, the results are mostly sim- itations is essential when screening potential predictors, i.e.

ilar (i.e. inter-annual variability of maximum and minimum predictors have to be chosen on the balance of their relevance

temperature). Finally, in strong majority of the results from to the target predictand and their accurate representation by

GCMs variables, the best downscaled values are obtained climate models (Wilby and Wigley, 2000; Wilby et al.,

when the statistical models were driven by HadCM3 predic- 2004). In our case, we have undertaken GCM verification

tors, as in the recent study of Dibike et al. (2007) in northern for few important predictors of interest, as low air temperature

Canada. and specific and relative humidity near the surface. Strong

biases have been found and in order to prevent the propagation

4.3. Model calibration using ridge regression of errors into the downscaling process (see Gachon et al.,

2005; Dibike et al., 2007; Gachon and Dibike, 2007), we

All of the results previously shown were obtained using have excluded these variables in the list of potential predictors.

multiple linear regressions because that component of ASD In using or not an automatic process for the selection of pre-

is more akin to the one provided by SDSM, which is the basis dictors, the scrupulous analysis of the candidate predictors is

of comparison. The implementation of the ridge regression is needed as those must be strongly correlated with the target

also briefly investigated here. We have used ridge regression variable, makes physical sense and captures multiyear vari-

with the five predictors selected by the stepwise regression ability (Wilby et al., 2004). Further works are needed in that

(Tables 5e8) and we obtained values of explained variance matter, in order to systematically evaluate the accuracy of can-

equal to those obtained with multiple linear regressions. How- didate predictors and incorporate other independent data series

ever, when ridge regression is implemented using all predic- with other GCMs, especially those recently released by IPCC

tors, model explained variances increase. (International Panel on Climate Change) and PCMDI (Pro-

Tables 5e8 include also the explained variance when ASD gram for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison)

model calibration is based on ridge regression for each predic- and incorporated in the Fourth Assessment Report of IPCC

tand. For each station, all predictors have been used except the (2007).

832 M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834

Therefore, the best performing predictors or combination of for all areas analyzed in northern and northeastern Canada.

predictors for current climate (NCEP or GCMs) does not nec- However, the potential effect of regional sea-ice processes

essarily mean those predictors are the most suitable for future and change in land cover (i.e. in particular the snow cover du-

changed climate conditions. For example, Murphy (1999) ration) is not well captured in the downscaling process. As sea-

found that a moisture predictor was not selected when it is ex- ice formation and retreat are coarsely simulated at the regional

pected that changes in moisture will influence precipitation, scale by most GCMs, such feedbacks are not adequately taken

and Charles et al. (1999) found that relative humidity but into account in the remaining predictors. Nevertheless, as sug-

not specific humidity produced downscaled estimates consis- gested in previous studies on a regression-based approach, the

tent with RCM projections. In our study, the downscaling use of relevant combination of predictors and not only a single

procedure of precipitation and temperature is not only based one or issued from the same physical processes is crucial, if pos-

on circulation variables (i.e. represented by geopotential, vor- sible representing different combinations of circulation, temper-

ticity or the wind component) but also includes other variables ature and humidity predictors.

such as temperature (through geopotential heights at various

levels and specific/relative humidity near the mid-troposphere) 6. Conclusion

and moisture variables (specific/relative humidity). This is in

agreement with other studies (Wilby et al., 1998; Huth, In this paper, an automated statistical downscaling method-

1999, 2002, 2004; Gachon et al., 2005) which have shown ology was presented using a backward stepwise regression for

that the use of combined predictors (circulation and tempera- predictors’ selection. Like other regression approaches, the re-

ture) is superior to that of any single predictor when downscal- sults indicate the strength of statistical downscaling for mod-

ing temperature and/or precipitation. This approach also eling temperature and less success for precipitation. When

avoids the assumption that changes in surface climate ele- modeling precipitation, the most commonly used predictor

ments due to the enhanced greenhouse effect can be derived variables were relative and specific humidity at 500 hPa, sur-

from changes in circulation alone, as this for example can face airflow strength, 850 hPa zonal velocity and 500 hPa geo-

lead to unrealistically low temperature change estimates (as potential height. For modeling temperature, mean sea level

suggested in Huth, 2004). Also, as suggested by Crane and pressure, surface vorticity and 850 hPa geopotential height

Hewitson (1998) and Wilby et al. (1998) including humidity were the most dominant variables. To evaluate the perfor-

not only improves the transfer function predictions for the mance of statistical downscaling approach, several climatic

present climate but also reduces the stationarity issue noted and statistical indices have been analyzed. The results indicate

above, as the dynamics and the humidity fields become sepa- that the agreement of simulations with observations depends

rate predictor variables in the downscaling function. on the statistical model and the GCM data, and the perfor-

As shown in the recent study of Gachon and Dibike (2007), mance of the statistical downscaling model varies for different

the SDSM model is able to simulate reliable and plausible stations and between seasons. From this study, the result com-

changes in mean values as well as probabilities of extreme parison of SDSM and ASD models has shown that neither

temperatures, in some specific locations in northern Canada, model consistently outperforms the other for the precipitation

from mainly the same sets of available predictors (from regime. For temperature, ASD outperforms SDSM with

CGCM2 and HadCM3) and using two emission scenarios HadCM3 predictors, and in the majority of the time with

(i.e. SRES A2 and B2). Over the period 2070e2099, the re- CGCM1 predictors. Overall results suggest also that HadCM3

sults demonstrate that the SDSM model is able to capture driven conditions give more often the best results, as revealed

the major part of the temperature change signal, with a plausi- in other recent study over Canada (Gachon et al., 2005; Dibike

ble climatic regime for higher warming in winter than in sum- et al., 2007).

mer and in A2 than in B2 runs. The combination of relevant The quality of SDSM results depends mostly on the skill of

atmospheric predictors in the downscaling process is able to the user; however, similar results can be obtained using ASD

take into account most key factors of the temperature change with ease very quickly. ASD reduces the problem of predictor

signal, with strong convergence in the magnitude and the tim- selection and it is computationally more efficient than SDSM

ing of the changes in all results. However, some potential un- and it is capable of performing all steps of statistical down-

derestimation of the warming from the downscaled signal scaling automatically. At the same time, the user can interfere

remains, as the regression method is inherently conservative in the process and is not limited to implementing this tool

in the presence of non-stationarity in the climate system. merely as a black box. However, using different statistical

Also, while empirical downscaling gives the first-order re- downscaling models can provide a better estimation of uncer-

sponse to the regional or local climate change, the regres- tainty for simulated climatic and statistical indices. The use of

sion-based method is unable to incorporate local-scale multi-sources GCM input together has the potential to provide

feedbacks, in particular the radiative effect based on cloud better results. This also allows to increase our confidence in

cover feedbacks. This leads to an underestimation of the projections for future climate changes scenarios when apply-

change in the local temperature regime, in particular in sum- ing the statistical models to a wide range of climate models

mer. In other seasons, stronger signals from changes in synop- to evaluate the uncertainties associated with different GCM

tic scale forcing are better taken into account in the statistical structures (as suggested in the guidelines of Wilby et al.,

downscaling scheme (from wind, geopotential and vorticity) 2004). Future studies will benefit from this feature by using

M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834 833

other method, as a non-linear approach like artificial neural Flato, G.M., Boer, G.J., Lee, W.G., McFarlane, N.A., Ramsden, D.,

network which can use redundant information from multi- Reader, M.C., Weaver, A.J., 2000. The Canadian centre for climate mod-

eling and analysis global coupled model and its climate. Climate Dynam-

sources GCM data to reduce the observation noises. Also, ics 16, 451e467.

with this new regression-based method, complementary anal- Frias, M.D., Zorita, E., Fernandez, J., Rodriguez-Puebla, C., 2006. Testing sta-

yses and evaluation should benefit from the downscaling re- tistical downscaling methods in simulated climates. Geophysical Research

sults developed over other areas where the climate regime is Letters 33, L19807, doi:10.1029/2006GL027453.

different, especially to test its usefulness with the ridge regres- Gachon, P., St-Hilaire, A., Ouarda, T.B.M.J., Nguyen, V.T.V., Lin, C., Milton,

J., Chaumont, D., Goldstein, J., Hessami, M., Nguyen, T.D., Selva, F.,

sion for the downscaling of precipitation in using other type of Nadeau, M., Roy, P., Parishkura, D., Major, N., Choux, M., Bourque, A.,

candidate predictors as those used in our study. In that respect, 2005. A First Evaluation of the Strength and Weaknesses of Statistical

the ASD model has been recently applied over monsoon areas Downscaling Methods for Simulating Extremes over Various Regions of

in Africa with encouraging results in reconstructing the occur- Eastern Canada. Sub-component, Climate Change Action Fund (CCAF),

rence of observed precipitation and in using more extended se- Environment Canada, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 209 pp. Available

from the first author.

ries of predictors. Nevertheless, further works are needed to Gachon, P., Dibike, Y., 2007. Temperature change signals in northern Canada:

evaluate in depth the fundamental assumption of statistical convergence of statistical downscaling results using two driving GCMs. In-

downscaling, i.e. the stability of the relationships between pre- ternational Journal of Climatology 27, 1623e1641.

dictors and predictand in altered climate, and there are some Gordon, C., Cooper, C., Senior, C.A., Banks, H., Gregory, J.M., Johns, T.C.,

ways to test their plausibility and consistency, as suggested Mitchell, J.F.B., Wood, R.A., 2000. The simulation of SST, sea ice extents

and ocean heat transports in a version of the Hadley Centre coupled model

in Frias et al. (2006), Gachon and Dibike (2007) and Huth without flux adjustments. Climate Dynamics 16, 147e168.

(2004). Haylock, M., 2004. STARDEX diagnostic extremes indices software user informa-

tion, version 3.3.1. <http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/projects/stardex/sdeis>.

Hewitson, B.C., Crane, R.G., 1996. Climate downscaling: techniques and ap-

Acknowledgements plication. Climate Research 7, 85e95.

Hoerl, A.E., Kennard, R.W., 1970. Ridge regression: application to nonorthog-

onal problems. Technometrics 12 (1), 69e82.

This project was funded by the Climate Change Action Huth, R., 1999. Statistical downscaling in central Europe: evaluation of

Fund (CCAF, Environment Canada) and the Natural Sciences methods and potential predictors. Climate Research 13, 91e101.

and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Huth, R., 2002. Statistical downscaling of daily temperature in central Europe.

was organized in collaboration with OURANOS and the Journal of Climate 15, 1731e1742.

CCIS (Canadian Climate Impacts Scenarios) Project of Envi- Huth, R., 2004. Sensitivity of local daily temperature change estimates to the

selection of downscaling models and predictors. Journal of Climate 17,

ronment Canada (renamed recently Canadian Climate Change 640e652.

Scenarios Network, CCSN: http://www.cccsn.ca). The authors IPCC, 2001. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of

wish to thank Lucie Vincent and Eva Mekis for having pro- Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental

vided the daily observed values from meteorological stations Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer,

of Environment Canada as well as George Desrochers, Diane M., van der Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K., Johnson, C.A. (Eds.)].

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. and New York, N.Y.,

Chaumont, Dimitri Parishkura and Franck Selva for their help. U.S.A., 881 pp.

The authors would like to thank Dr. Rob Wilby and Dr. Chris- IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007. The Physical Science Basis. Contribution

tian Dawson for their feedbacks during the CCAF project and of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovern-

Dr. Elaine Barrow to have given the access of GCMs predic- mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Summary for Policymakers.

tors developed by CCIS. Available from: <http://www.ipcc.ch> (accessed 10.03.07).

Kalnay, E., Kanamitsu, M., Kistler, R., Collins, W., Deaven, D., Gandin, L.,

Iredell, M., Saha, S., White, G., Woollen, J., Zhu, Y., Chelliah, M.,

Ebisuzaki, W., Higgins, W., Janowiak, J., Mo, K.C., Ropelewski, C., Wang, J.,

References Leetmaa, A., Reynolds, R., Jenne, R., Joseph, D., 1996. The NCEP/NCAR

40-year reanalysis project. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

Afifi, A.A., Clark, V., 1996. Computer-aided Multivariate Analysis, third ed. 77, 437e471.

Chapman & Hall, London. McCuen, R.H., 2003. Modeling Hydrologic Change. CRC press, pp. 261e263.

Bates, B.C., Charles, S.P., Hughes, J.P., 1998. Stochastic downscaling of nu- Mearns, L.O., Giorgi, F., McDaniel, L., Shields, C., 1995. Analysis of daily

merical climate model simulations. Environmental Modelling and Soft- variability of precipitation in a nested regional climate model: comparison

ware 13, 325e331. with observations and doubled CO2 results. Global and Planetary Change

Bonferroni, C.E., 1936. Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilità, 10, 55e78.

vol. 8. Pubblicazioni del R Istituto Superiore di Scienze Economiche e Mearns, L.O., Giorgi, F., Whetton, P., Pabon, D., Hulme, M., Lal, M., 2003.

Commerciali di Firenze, pp. 3e62. Guidelines for Use of Climate Scenarios Developed from Regional Cli-

Charles, S.P., Bates, B.C., Whetton, P.H., Hughes, J.P., 1999. Validation of mate Model Experiments. Data Distribution Centre of the International

downscaling models for changed climate conditions: case study of south- Panel of Climate Change, 38 pp. Available from IPCC-DDC: http://www.

western Australia. Climate Research 12, 1e14. ipcc-data.org/.

Crane, R.G., Hewitson, B.C., 1998. Doubled CO2 precipitation changes for the Murphy, J., 1999. An evaluation of statistical and dynamical techniques for

Susquehanna basin: downscaling from the GENESIS general circulation downscaling local climate. Journal of Climate 12, 2256e2284.

model. International Journal of Climatology 18, 65e76. Pope, V.D., Gallani, M.L., Rowntree, P.R., Stratton, R.A., 2000. The impact of

Dibike, Y., Gachon, P., St-Hilaire, A., Ouarda, T.B.M.J., Nguyen, V.T.V., 2007. new physical parametrizations in the Hadley Centre climate model e

Uncertainty analysis of statistically downscaled temperature and precipita- HadAM3. Climate Dynamics 16, 123e146.

tion regimes in Northern Canada. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Racsko, P., Szeidl, L., Semenov, M., 1991. A serial approach to local stochas-

doi:10.1007/s00704-007-0299-z. tic weather models. Ecological Modelling 57, 27e41.

834 M. Hessami et al. / Environmental Modelling & Software 23 (2008) 813e834

Richardson, C., 1981. Stochastic simulation of daily precipitation, tempera- Wilby, R.L., Dawson, C.W., Barrow, E.M., 2002. SDSM e a decision support

ture, and solar radiation. Water Resources Research 17, 182e190. tool for the assessment of regional climate change impacts. Environmental

Semenov, M.A., Barrow, E., 1997. Use of stochastic weather generator in the Modelling and Software 17, 147e159.

development of climate change scenarios. Climatic Change 35, 397e414. Wilby, R.L., Hay, L.E., Leavesley, G.H., 1999. A comparison of downscaled

The Mathworks, 2002. Getting Started with MATLAB, Release 13. and raw GCM output: implications for climate change scenarios in the

Vincent, L.A., Mékis, É., 2004. Variations and trends in climate indices for Can- San Juan River basin, Colorado. Journal of Hydrology 225, 67e91.

ada. In: Proceeding of 14th Conference on Applied Climatology, 11e15 Jan- Wilby, R.L., Wigley, T.M.E., 2000. Precipitation predictors for downscaling:

uary 2004, Seattle, Washington. American Meteorological Society, 5 pp. observed and general circulation model relationships. International Journal

Vincent, L.A., Zhang, X., Bonsal, B.R., Hogg, W.D., 2002. Homogenization of of Climatology 20, 641e661.

daily temperatures over Canada. Journal of Climate 15, 1322e1334. Wilby, R.L., Charles, S.P., Zorita, E., Timbal, B., Whetton, P., Mearns, L.O.,

Wilby, R.L., Wigley, T.M.L., 1997. Downscaling general circulation model 2004. Guidelines for use of climate scenarios developed from statistical

output: a review of methods and limitations. Progress in Physical Geogra- downscaling methods, available from the DDC of IPCC TGCIA, 27 pp.

phy 21, 530e548. Available from: IPCC-DDC: <http://www.ipcc-data.org/>.

Wilby, R.L., Wigley, T.M.L., Conway, D., Jones, P.D., Hewitson, B.C., Main, J., Yarnal, B., Comrie, A.C., Frakes, B., Brown, D.P., 2001. Developments and

Wilks, D.S., 1998. Statistical downscaling of general circulation model out- prospects in synoptic climatology. International Journal of Climatology

put: a comparison of methods. Water Resources Research 34, 2995e3008. 21, 1923e1950.

- Responding to Climate Change in New York State, Technical Report published by the New York State Energy Research and Development AuthorityDiunggah olehRandall West
- MJC_H2_MATH_P2Diunggah olehjimmytanlimlong
- Demand Forecasting for Eggs & SoapDiunggah olehIpsita Das
- Mohanty.et.AlDiunggah olehapi-3727467
- 01 Climate Models and Their LimitationsDiunggah olehjoesegu
- science fair experimental self assesmentDiunggah olehapi-448624261
- Predictors of School Success in Romania.Diunggah olehProiectul SOS
- Global WarmingDiunggah olehAlban Beqiri
- 695_WooDiunggah olehjayjam_scribd
- Climate Change, Hydrology, And Water ResourcesDiunggah olehWalter Rodríguez
- Climate Change Will Affect Plant Pests and Diseases in the Same Way It Affects Infectious Disease AgentsDiunggah olehkuldeepdeepika
- SPSS_lab2RegressionDiunggah olehsangeetavjoice
- Analysis of Parameters of Ground Vibration Produced From Bench Blasting at a Limestone QuarryDiunggah olehMostafa-0088
- MIT17_871S12_GrpGuidanceDiunggah olehdjoseph_1
- Expert Meeting Report ScenariosDiunggah olehPooja Pandey
- Experimental MethodrDiunggah olehSamantha Nacion
- Geomath Lect12 StatsDiunggah olehadf500
- E-59.pdfDiunggah olehrijilpoothadi
- corr reg 1.pdfDiunggah olehrajender564
- 12585515Diunggah olehindia
- LECTURE 8Diunggah olehahsanlone
- Age Differences in DailyDiunggah olehcar
- The Introduction.docxDiunggah olehJasper
- pdfDiunggah olehDevita Mayasari 'nyaa
- SSRN-id3230368Diunggah olehAngela Simoes
- Synopsis Laboratory Reports- Effects on Student Learning and CurrDiunggah olehpaula luna
- Democracy and oilDiunggah olehBelinda Roemer
- Senastek PUU ErikDiunggah olehdwi
- 20Diunggah olehRohit Kalia
- 10.1007@978-3-030-00335-710Diunggah olehshaharyarkhan

- Hot_SpotDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- Development of New Reliability Measure for Bus Routes Using Trajectory DataDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- Addressing Education and Training Needs of Road Safety AuditorsDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- Tanuj__Chopra_RSA-part-I.pdfDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- Precipitation fluctuations in the Himalaya and its vicinity An analysis based on temperature records from Nepal_2000.pdfDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- GG 119 Road Safety Audit-web.pdfDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- Road_Accidents_in_India_2010.pdfDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- RSADiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- Road Safety Audit for Road ProjectsDiunggah olehEranga Sampath
- Road Safety AuditDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- 3.3 India_Mr. Tony Mathew.pdfDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- 3.3 India_Mr. Tony MathewDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- 1-s2.0-S2095756417303185-mainDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- 10.1.1.131.7357Diunggah olehGebre Tsegai
- A Study on the Method for Cleaning and Repairing the Probe Vehicle DataDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- IMPORTANT_Traffic Sensing Through AccelerometersDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- Total Station and Its Applications in Surveying - GIS ResourcesDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- Ramp MeteringDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- Advice Leaflet SCOOTDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- Nearest Neighbour algorithmDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- CBNT Practical Problem1_CodeDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- Analysis in GISDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- Lecture 05 1Diunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- Lecture 11Diunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- THESIS Algorithm for Detection of Hot Spots of Traffic Through Analysis of GPS DataDiunggah olehEndless Love
- Finalppt Revised 30-04-2018Diunggah olehvarunsingh214761
- ITS Benefits and Cost ConsiderationDiunggah olehvarunsingh214761

- Statistical TestsDiunggah olehdkanand86
- Cleaning and Transforming DataDiunggah olehKarla Melissakk
- some researchDiunggah olehJP Taccad Romero
- Jarque and Bera 1987 - A Test for Normality of Observations and Regression Residuals.pdfDiunggah olehAnonymous 105zV1
- Kuiper Ch03Diunggah olehSunil Pandey
- Measurement of Steam QualityDiunggah olehMayank
- HW7Diunggah olehClement Runtung
- Emissions and Emission Projections of HFC, PFC and SF6 in GermanyDiunggah olehapi-3697505
- Cluster AnalysisDiunggah olehstevevu
- Introduction to Wildland Fire Behavior Calculations390RMDiunggah olehFG Summer
- Proc Arima ProcedureDiunggah olehBikash Bhandari
- 202SU01Diunggah olehJonathan Oviedo
- 07377167.pdfDiunggah olehPradeep Singla
- TpaDiunggah olehEduardo Arcos
- RDataMining Slides Regression ClassificationDiunggah olehcmcf
- Astm d 2036-98 CianuroDiunggah olehGianinaRoncalChávez
- AgainstAllOdds_StudentGuide_Unit30Diunggah olehHacı Osman
- SQQS1013-Ch5-A122Diunggah olehAwnieAzizan
- Report - Kettle PracDiunggah olehAnonymous Nxp8b51
- DOE Regression Instructions for SPC for Excel 4Diunggah olehFamília Carvalho
- Chapters 9-13 a Statistical Journey_taming of the Skew Slides by Dr. DeMoulin & Dr. KritsonisDiunggah olehAnonymous sewU7e6
- Inferential 1 StudentDiunggah olehAbegail Gan
- weibullmpsDiunggah olehmichyim
- Whole Room DisinfectionDiunggah olehkfujiwar
- Chemistry LabDiunggah olehAndy Daswani
- Sys Lab Magazine 614 444Diunggah olehjuli_rad
- Series 101 Worker Bee Convection Vacuum Gauge Data SheetDiunggah olehInstruTech, Inc.
- Physical Forces Nickitas GeorgasDiunggah olehHRNERR
- Arneodo Et AlDiunggah olehhanane
- Notes on SPSSDiunggah olehranjana30