Theoretical and Applied Climatology

, Volume 131, Issue 1–2, pp 181–200 | Cite as

Annual statistical downscaling of precipitation and evaporation and monthly disaggregation

  • D. A. SachindraEmail author
  • B. J. C. Perera
Original Paper


Development of downscaling models for each calendar month using the data of predictors specifically selected for each calendar month may assists in better capturing the time-varying nature of the predictor-predictand relationships. Such approach will not allow the explicit modelling of the persistence of the predictand (e.g. lag-1 correlation). However, downscaling at an annual time step and subsequent disaggregation to monthly values can explicitly consider the modelling of the persistence of the predictand. This study investigated the potential of annual downscaling of a predictand and subsequent disaggregation of annual values to monthly values, in comparison to the potential of downscaling models separately developed for each calendar month. In the case study, annual and monthly downscaling models were developed for precipitation and evaporation at two stations located in Victoria, Australia. The output of the annual downscaling models was then disaggregated into monthly values using four different methods based on the method of fragments. It was found that the annual to monthly disaggregation methods and monthly downscaling models are able to reproduce the average of monthly observations with relatively higher accuracy in comparison to their ability in reproducing standard deviation, skewness and lag-1 serial correlation. Downscaling models separately developed for each calendar month were able to show relatively smaller root mean square errors for their time series indicating better overall agreement with observations in comparison to their counterpart annual to monthly disaggregation methods. Furthermore, it was found that not only the bias in the output of an annual downscaling model but also the presence of annual totals in the records of observations of a predictand that are very similar in magnitude, but having significantly different sets of fragments, can largely contribute to the poor performance of an annual to monthly disaggregation method.



The authors wish to thank the SILO team of the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence, Australia, for their clarifications on observed data used in this study.


  1. Acharya A, Ryu J (2014) Simple method for streamflow disaggregation. J Hydrol Eng 19:509–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arsénio JJG (2003) Gestão de Albufeiras: avaliação do potencial dos sistemas com recurso a séries sintéticas de escoamentos (in Portuguese), Lisbon, Portugal. Master ThesisGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashraf VS, Mousavi SJ, Abbaspour KC, Srinivasan R, Yang H (2014) Analyses of the impact of climate change on water resources components, drought and wheat yield in semiarid regions: Karkheh River Basin in Iran. Hydrol Process 28:2018–2032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bürger G, Murdock TQ, Werner AT, Sobie SR, Cannon AJ (2012) Downscaling extremes—an intercomparison of multiple statistical methods for present climate. J Clim 25:4366–4388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goly A, Teegavarapu RSV, Mondal A (2014) Development and evaluation of statistical downscaling models for monthly precipitation. Earth Interact 18:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. IPCC (2013) Climate Change (2013) The Physical Science Basis. Available at Accessed 12 Dec 2015
  7. Jeffrey SJ, Carter JO, Moodie KB, Beswick AR (2001) Using spatial interpolation to construct a comprehensive archive of Australian climate data. Environ Model Softw 16:309–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kannan S, Ghosh S, Mishra V, Salvi K (2014) Uncertainty resulting from multiple data usage in statistical downscaling. Geophys Res Lett 41:4013–4019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kosaka Y, Xie SP (2013) Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling. Nature 501:403–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Koza J (1992) Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by natural selection. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  11. Maheepala S, Perera B (1996) Monthly hydrologic data generation by disaggregation. J. Hydro. 178:277–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mahmood R, Babel MS (2013) Evaluation of SDSM developed by annual and monthly sub-models for downscaling temperature and precipitation in the Jhelum basin, Pakistan and India. Theor Appl Climatol 113:27–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. May RJ, Maier HR, Dandy GC, Fernando TMKG (2008) Non-linear variable selection for artificial neural networks using partial mutual information. Environ Model Softw 23:1312–1326. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.03.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Najafi M, Moradkhani H, Wherry S (2011) Statistical downscaling of precipitation using machine learning with optimal predictor selection. J Hydrol Eng 16:650–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pascual D, Pla E, Lopez-Bustins JA, Retana J, Terradas J (2015) Impacts of climate change on water resources in the Mediterranean Basin: a case study in Catalonia. Spain Hydrolog Sci J 60:2132–2147. doi: 10.1080/02626667.2014.947290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Porter JW, Pink BJ (1991) A method of synthetic fragments for disaggregation in stochastic data generation. Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, Institution of Engineers, Australia, pp 187–191Google Scholar
  17. Rayner, DP (2005) Australian synthetic daily Class A pan evaporation. Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines. Available at Accessed 20 Sep 2016
  18. Sachindra DA, Huang F, Barton AF, Perera BJC (2013) Least square support vector and multi-linear regression for statistically downscaling general circulation model outputs to catchment streamflows. Int J Climatol 33:1087–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sachindra DA, Huang F, Barton AF, Perera BJC (2014a) Statistical downscaling of general circulation model outputs to precipitation part 2: bias-correction and future projections. Int J Climatol 34:3282–3303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sachindra DA, Huang F, Barton AF, Perera BJC (2014b) Statistical downscaling of general circulation model outputs to catchment scale hydroclimatic variables issues. Challenges and Possible Solutions Journal of Water and Climate Change 5:496–525. doi: 10.2166/wcc.2014.056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sachindra DA, Huang F, Barton AF, Perera BJC (2015a) Statistical downscaling of general circulation model outputs to evaporation, minimum temperature and maximum temperature using a key-predictand and key-station approach. Journal of Water and Climate Change 6:241–262. doi: 10.2166/wcc.2014.145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sachindra DA, Ng AWM, Muthukumaran S, Perera BJC (2015b) Impact of climate change on urban heat island effect and extreme temperatures: a case-study. QJR Meteorol Soc 142:172–186. doi: 10.1002/qj.2642 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Santos EG (1983) Disaggregation modeling of hydrologic time series. Thesis (PhD), Colorado State University, Colorado, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. Silva AT, Portela MM (2012) Disaggregation modelling of monthly streamflows using a new approach of the method of fragments. Hydrolog Sci J 57:942–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Srikanthan R, Mcmahon TA (1980) Stochastic generation of monthly flows for ephemeral streams. J. Hydro. 47:19–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tofiq FA, Guven A (2014) Prediction of design flood discharge by statistical downscaling and general circulation models. J Hydro 517:1145–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Volosciuk C, Maraun D, Semenov VA, Park W (2015) Extreme precipitation in an atmosphere general circulation model: impact of horizontal and vertical model resolutions. J Clim 28:1184–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Sustainability and Innovation, College of Engineering and ScienceVictoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations