Climate Dynamics

, Volume 47, Issue 1–2, pp 411–431 | Cite as

Downscaling humidity with Localized Constructed Analogs (LOCA) over the conterminous United States

  • D. W. PierceEmail author
  • D. R. Cayan


Humidity is important to climate impacts in hydrology, agriculture, ecology, energy demand, and human health and comfort. Nonetheless humidity is not available in some widely-used archives of statistically downscaled climate projections for the western U.S. In this work the Localized Constructed Analogs (LOCA) statistical downscaling method is used to downscale specific humidity to a 1°/16° grid over the conterminous U.S. and the results compared to observations. LOCA reproduces observed monthly climatological values with a mean error of ~0.5 % and RMS error of ~2 %. Extreme (1-day in 1- and 20-years) maximum values (relevant to human health and energy demand) are within ~5 % of observed, while extreme minimum values (relevant to agriculture and wildfire) are within ~15 %. The asymmetry between extreme maximum and minimum errors is largely due to residual errors in the bias correction of extreme minimum values. The temporal standard deviations of downscaled daily specific humidity values have a mean error of ~1 % and RMS error of ~3 %. LOCA increases spatial coherence in the final downscaled field by ~13 %, but the downscaled coherence depends on the spatial coherence in the data being downscaled, which is not addressed by bias correction. Temporal correlations between daily, monthly, and annual time series of the original and downscaled data typically yield values >0.98. LOCA captures the observed correlations between temperature and specific humidity even when the two are downscaled independently.


Statistical downscaling Climate modeling Hydrology 



We would like to thank a reviewer who made valuable suggestions that improved this work. This work was made possible by support from California Energy Commission, agreement #500-10-041, which is gratefully acknowledged. Additional support was provided by the NOAA California Nevada Applications Program (CNAP) RISA award NOAA NA11OAR4310150, and the Department of Interior’s (U.S. Geological Survey) Southwest Climate Science Center, grant USGS G12AC20518. Computational resources in partial support of this work were provided by the NASA Earth Exchange (NEX) collaborative through the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) Division at Ames Research Center.

Supplementary material

382_2015_2845_MOESM1_ESM.docx (887 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 886 kb)


  1. Abatzoglou JT (2012) Development of gridded surface meteorological data for ecological applications and modelling. Int J Climatol. doi: 10.1002/joc.3413 Google Scholar
  2. Abatzoglou JT, Brown TJ (2012) A comparison of statistical downscaling methods suited for wildfire applications. Int J Climatol 32:772–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown TJ, Hall BL, Westerling AL (2004) The impact of twenty-first century climate change on wildland fire danger in the western United States: An applications perspective. Clim Change 62:365–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daly C, Halbleib M, Smith JI, Gibson WP, Doggett MK, Taylor GH, Curtis J, Pasteris PA (2008) Physiographically-sensitive mapping of temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States. Int J Climatol. doi: 10.1002/joc.1688 Google Scholar
  5. Fowler HJ, Blenkinsop S, Tebaldi C (2007) Linking climate change modelling to impacts studies: recent advances in downscaling techniques for hydrological modelling. Int J Climatol 27:1547–1578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Friend AD (1995) PGEN—an integrated model of leaf photosynthesis, transpiration, and conductance. Ecol Model 77:233–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gent PR, Danabasoglu G, Donner LJ, Holland MM, Hunke EC, Jayne SR, Lawrence DM, Neale RB, Rasch PJ, Vertenstein M, Worley PH, Yang Z-L, Zhang M (2011) The community climate system model version 4. J Clim 24:4973–4991. doi: 10.1175/2011JCLI4083.1   CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gutmann E, Pruitt T, Clark MP, Brekke L, Arnold JR, Raff DA, Rasmussen RM (2014) An intercomparison of statistical downscaling methods used for water resource assessments in the United States. Water Resour Res 50:7167–7186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hidalgo HG, Dettinger MD, Cayan DR (2008). Downscaling with constructed analogues: daily precipitation and temperature fields over the United States. CEC PIER Project Report CEC-500-2007-123Google Scholar
  10. Klein WH, Glahn HR (1974) Forecasting local weather by means of model output statistics. Bull Amer Meteorolol Soc 55:1217–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lawrence DM et al (2011) Parameterization improvements and functional and structure advances in version 4 of the Community Land Model. J Adv Model Earth Syst 3:M03001. doi: 10.1029/2011MS000045 Google Scholar
  12. Li H, Sheffield J, Wood EF (2010) Bias correction of monthly precipitation and temperature fields from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR4 models using equidistant quantile matching. J Geophys Res Atmos. doi: 10.1029/2009JD012882 Google Scholar
  13. Livneh B, Rosenberg EA, Lin C, Nijssen B, Mishra V, Andreadis K, Maurer EP, Lettenmaier DP (2013). A long-term hydrologically based data set of land surface fluxes and states for the conterminous United States: updates and extensions. J Clim 26:9384–9392Google Scholar
  14. Lovejoy S, Schertzer D, Allaire VC (2008) The remarkable wide range spatial scaling of TRMM precipitation. Atmos Res 90:10–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maraun D, Wetterrhall F, Ireson AM, Chandler RE, Kendon EJ et al (2010) Precipitation downscaling under climate change: recent developments to bridge the gap between dynamical models and the end user. Rev Geophys 48:RG3003. doi: 10.1029/2009RG000314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maurer EP, Hidalgo HG, Das T, Dettinger MD, Cayan DR (2010) The utility of daily large-scale climate data in the assessment of climate change impacts on daily streamflow in California. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 14:1125–1138. doi: 10.5194/hess-14-1125-2010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maurer EP, Brekke L, Pruitt T, Thrasher B, Long J, Duffy PB, Dettinger MD, Cayan D, Arnold J (2014) An enhanced archive facilitating climate impacts analysis. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-1113-00126.00121 Google Scholar
  18. Michelangeli P-A, Vrac M, Loukos H (2009) Probabilistic downscaling approaches: application to wind cumulative distribution functions. Geophys Res Lett 36:L11708. doi: 10.1029/2009GL038401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mirasgedis S, Sarafidis Y, Georgopoulou E, Lalas DP, Moschovits M, Karagiannis F, Papakonstantinou D (2006) Models for mid-term electricy demand forecasting incorporating weather influences. Energy 31:208–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitchell KE et al (2004) The multi-institution North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS): utilizing multiple GCIP products and partners in a continental distributed hydrological modeling system. J Geophys Res D109:D07S90. doi: 10.1029/2003JD003823 Google Scholar
  21. Panofsky HA, Brier GW (1968) Some applications of statistics to meteorology. The Pennsylvania State University, University ParkGoogle Scholar
  22. Pierce DW, Westerling AL, Oyler J (2013) Future humidity trends over the western United States in the CMIP5 global climate models and variable infiltration capacity hydrological modeling system. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17:1833–1850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pierce DW, Cayan DR, Thrasher BL (2014) Statistical downscaling using Localized Constructed Analogs (LOCA). J. Hydromet 15:2558–2585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pierce DW, Cayan DR, Maurer EP, Abatzoglou J, Hegewisch K (2015). Improved bias correction techniques for hydrological simulations of climate change. J Hydrometeorol. doi: 10.1175/JHM-D-14-0236.1
  25. Rothfusz LP (1990) The heat index ‘equation’ (or, more than you ever wanted to know about heat index). Technical attachment SR 90-23, scientific services division. NWS Southern Region Headquarters, Fort WorthGoogle Scholar
  26. Rummukainen M (2009) State-of-the-art with regional climate models. WIRES Clim Change 1:82–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Steadman RG (1979) The assessment of sultriness. Part I: a temperature-humidity index based on human physiology and clothing science. J Appl Meteorol 18:861–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:485–498. doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-1111-00094.00091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thom EC (1959) The discomfort index. Weatherwise 12:57–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thornton PE, Thornton MM, Mayer BW, Wilhelmi N, Wei Y, Cook RB (2012). Daymet: daily surface weather on a 1 km grid for North America, 1980–2012.
  31. Thrasher B, Maurer EP, McKellar C, Duffy PB (2012) Technical note: bias correcting climate model simulated daily temperature extremes with quantile mapping. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:3309–3314. doi: 10.5194/hess-16-3309-2012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van den Dool HM (1994) Searching for analogues, how long must we wait? Tellus 46A:314–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wood AW, Maurer EP, Kumar A, Lettenamier DP (2002) 2002: long-range experimental hydrologic forecasting for the eastern United States. J Geophys Res D 107:4429. doi: 10.1029/2001JD000659 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Climate, Atmospheric Sciences, and Physical OceanographyScripps Institution of OceanographyLa JollaUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Geological SurveyLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations