Coupling statistical and dynamical methods for spatial downscaling of precipitation

Abstract

The resolution of General Circulation Models (GCMs) is too coarse for climate change impact studies at the catchment or site-specific scales. To overcome this problem, both dynamical and statistical downscaling methods have been developed. Each downscaling method has its advantages and drawbacks, which have been described in great detail in the literature. This paper evaluates the improvement in statistical downscaling (SD) predictive power when using predictors from a Regional Climate Model (RCM) over a GCM for downscaling site-specific precipitation. Our approach uses mixed downscaling, combining both dynamic and statistical methods. Precipitation, a critical element of hydrology studies that is also much more difficult to downscale than temperature, is the only variable evaluated in this study. The SD method selected here uses a stepwise linear regression approach for precipitation quantity and occurrence (similar to the well-known Statistical Downscaling Model (SDSM) and called SDSM-like herein). In addition, a discriminant analysis (DA) was tested to generate precipitation occurrence, and a weather typing approach was used to derive statistical relationships based on weather types, and not only on a seasonal basis as is usually done. The existing data record was separated into a calibration and validation periods. To compare the relative efficiency of the SD approaches, relationships were derived at the same sites using the same predictors at a 300km scale (the National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis) and at a 45km scale with data from the limited-area Canadian Regional Climate Model (CRCM) driven by NCEP data at its boundaries. Predictably, using CRCM variables as predictors rather than NCEP data resulted in a much-improved explained variance for precipitation, although it was always less than 50 % overall. For precipitation occurrence, the SDSM-like model slightly overestimated the frequencies of wet and dry periods, while these were well-replicated by the DA-based model. Both the SDSM-like and DA-based models reproduced the percentage of wet days, but the wet and dry statuses for each day were poorly downscaled by both approaches. Overall, precipitation occurrence downscaled by the DA-based model was much better than that predicted by the SDSM-like model. Despite the added complexity, the weather typing approach was not better at downscaling precipitation than approaches without classification. Overall, despite significant improvements in precipitation occurrence prediction by the DA scheme, and even going to finer scales predictors, the SD approach tested here still explained less than 50 % of the total precipitation variance. While going to even smaller scale predictors (10–15 km) might improve results even more, such smaller scales would basically transform the direct outputs of climate models into impact models, thus negating the need for statistical downscaling approaches.