Influence of similarity measures on the performance of the analog method for downscaling daily precipitation
- 200 Downloads
This study examines the performance of the analog method for downscaling daily precipitation. The evaluation is performed for (1) a number of similarity measures for searching analogs, (2) various ways to include the past atmospheric evolution, and (3) different truncations in EOF space. It is carried out for two regions with complex topographic structures, and with distinct climatic characteristics, namely, California’s Central Valley (together with the Sierra Nevada) and the European Alps. NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data are used to represent the large scale state of the atmosphere over the regions. The assessment is based on simulating daily precipitation for 103 stations for the month of January, for the years 1950–2004 in the California region, and for 70 stations in the European Alps (January 1948–2004). Generally, simulated precipitation is in better agreement with observations in the California region than in the European Alps. Similarity measures such as the Euclidean norm, the sum of absolute differences and the angle between two atmospheric states perform better than measures which introduce additional weightings to principal components (e.g., the Mahalanobis distance). The best choice seems dependent upon the target variable. Lengths of wet spells, for instance, are best simulated by using the angular similarity measure. Overall, the Euclidean norm performs satisfactorily in most cases and hence is a reasonable first choice, whereas the use of Mahalanobis distance is less advisable. The performance of the analog method improves by including large-scale information for bygone days, particularly, for the simulation of wet and dry spells. Optimal performance is obtained when about 85–90% of the total predictor variability is retained.
This work was supported by a Visiting Fellowship to Canadian Government Laboratories awarded to C. Matulla through NSERC. J. Wang was supported by CFCAS. We are thankful to H. Kuhn who has enabled us to a trouble free processing of our calculations, to E. Watson, V. Kharin and D. Bray for stimulating suggestions and comments on this study. Furthermore we are grateful to two anonymous reviewers who helped to strenghten the manuscript.
- Auer I, Böhm R, Schöner W (2001) Austrian long-term climate 1767–2000—multiple instrumental climate time series from Central Europe. Technical Report 25, Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics, Vienna, pp 147Google Scholar
- Baur F (1951) Extended-range forecasting by weather types. Compendium of meteorology. Am Meteor Soc, pp 814–833Google Scholar
- Elliot RD (1951) Extended-range weather forecasting. Compendium of meteorology. Am Meteor Soc, pp 834–840Google Scholar
- Gleason BE (2002) National climate data center data documentation for data set 9101, global daily climatology network v1.0. Technical report, National Climatic Data Center, AshevilleGoogle Scholar
- Gruza GV, Ran’kova EY (1986) Monitoring and probability forecast of monthly and seasonal variations in hemisphere atmospherical processes. In: Proceedings of First WMO workshop on the diagnosis and prediction of monthly and seasonal atmospheric variations over the globe, vol II of long-range forecasting res. Rep. Ser. 6, WMO/TD 87. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, pp 682–688Google Scholar
- IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The scientific basis. Appendix 10.4: Examples of downscaling studies. Cambridge Univiersity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 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 KC, Ropelewski C, Wang J, Leetmaa A, Reynolds R, Jenne R, Joseph D (1996) The NCEP/NCAR reanalysis project. Bull Am Meteor Soc 77:437–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Livezey RE, Barnston AG (1988) An operational mulitfield analog/antianalog prediction system for United States seasonal temperatures. Part 1: System design and winter experiments. J Geophys Res 93:10953–10974Google Scholar
- Schöner W, Auer I, Böhm R, Thaler S (2003) Quality control and statistical characteristics of selected climate parameters on the basis of daily values in the face of extreme value analysis (German). In: Kromp-Kolb H, Schwarzl I (eds) StartClim–Start Project: First analysis of extreme weather events and their impacts on Austria, vol 1. Institute of Meteorology and Physics, BOKU - University of Natural Resources and Applied Life sciences, Vienna, p 52Google Scholar
- Soucy D (1991) Revised users guide to days 3-4-5 automated forecast composition program. Canadian Meteorological Centre, Environment CanadaGoogle Scholar
- von Storch H, Zwiers FW (1999) Statistical analysis in climate research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 528 ppGoogle Scholar
- Yambor WS, Draper BA, Beveridge JR (2002) Empirical evaluation methods in computer vision, volume 50 of series in machine perception and artificial intelligence. In: Christensen H, Phillips J (eds) Chapter analyzing PCA-based face recognition algorithms: eigenvector selection and distance measures. World Scientific Press, SingaporeGoogle Scholar