Comparison of Statistical and Dynamic Downscaling methods for ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Data GCMs used in this study Modeling Group, Country Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, Norway US Dept. of Commerce/NOAA/Geophy sical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, USA Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling & Analysis, Canada WCRP CMIP3* I.D. BCCR- BCM2.0 GFDL- CM2.0 CGCM3.1 Primary Reference Furevik et al., 2003 Delworth et al., 2006 Flato and Boer, 2001 National Center for Atmospheric Research, USA CCSM Collins et al., 2006 * WCRP CMIP3: World Climate Research Programme's Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project phase 3 Latitude 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 BCCR, 2.8 o x 2.8 o GFDL, 2.0 o x2.5 o CGCM3, 2.8 o x2.8 o CCSM, 1.4 o x1.4 o 24 -88 -87 -86 -85 -84 -83 -82 -81 -80 Longitude Gridded observations 12x12km 2 , 1/8 degree resolution: Maurer et al., 2002 4
Method Schematic representation of the methodology 5
Page 1 and 2: Comparison of Statistical and Dynam
Page 3: General circulation models 200~300k
Page 7 and 8: Transition Probability Wet to Wet D
Page 9 and 10: General circulation models 200~300k
Page 11 and 12: Method Study domain 11
Page 13 and 14: Mean of errors for monthly average
Page 15 and 16: Frequency of daily streamflow event
Page 17 and 18: Conclusions • Dynamically downsca

Comparison of Statistical and Dynamic Downscaling methods for ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?