| dc.description.abstract |
Bias correction techniques have shown great promise in climate modelling and impact
assessment studies in recent years. The climate model data should be corrected /downscaled
for inaccuracies and prediction uncertainties using efficient bias correction techniques.
Therefore, this study was focused on evaluating bias correction methods for downscaling
CMIP6 global climate models precipitation simulations in selected stations of Ethiopia. The
five precipitation bias correction methods that were applied in this study include linear scaling
(multiplicative), delta change correction (multiplicative), precipitation local intensity scaling,
power transformation of precipitation and distribution mapping of precipitation. Daily
precipitation data for the selected stations were obtained from the National Meteorological
Service Agency (NMSA) of Ethiopia, whereas the CMIP6 GCM data was a historical CNRM
CM6 1 (Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques) model obtained from 1995 to 2014.
The model data was extracted and bias corrected with observation at CMhyd tools. The bias
correction methods were evaluated with their CRI (comprehensive rating index) values and
several statistical measures. This study revealed that, delta change correction (multiplicative)
was performed better than the other bias correction methods for all selected stations at alltime
scales.
It
has
perfect
correlation
of
1,
a
bias
of
zero
percent,
and
low
errors
in
simulation.
Power
transformation
and
distribution
mapping
were
the
best
preferable
methods
next
to
delta
change
correction in daily and monthly simulations. All bias correction techniques were
adequately downscaled the GCM in mean monthly precipitations simulations for almost all
selected stations. The power transformation and linear scaling techniques were effective to
adjust the annual GCM simulation. Whereas precipitation local intensity scaling and linear
scaling multiplicative bias correction methods were less preferable than the above methods at
daily and monthly period. The distribution mapping of precipitation method led to
underestimating and overestimating the given observed precipitation in all periods, |
en_US |