Comparison Performance of the Multi-Regional Climate Model (RCM) in Simulating Rainfall and Air Temperature in Batanghari Watershed

Many scientists assume that RCM output is directly used as input for climate change impact models, while it consists of systematic errors. Consequently, RCM still requires bias correction to be used as an input model. The purpose of this study was to analyze the RCM performance before and after bias correction, its best performance from several models, as well as to clarify the importance of bias correction before it is used to analyze climate change. As a result of this, the method used for bias correction was Distribution Mapping method (for rainfall) and Average Ratio-method (for air temperature). While the Generalized Extrem Valuedistribution (GEV) was used to analysis extreme rainfall. To determine the performance of the model before and after bias correction, statistical analysis was used namelyR2, NSE, and RMSE. Furthermore, ranking for every single model and Taylor Diagram was used to determine the best model. The results showed that the RCMs performance improved with bias correction. However, CSIRO-Mk3-6-0, CCSM4, GFDL-ESM2M, and MPI-ESM-MR models can be ignored as ensemble models, because they demonstrated poor performance in simulating rainfall. From this study, it was suggested that the best model in simulating daily and monthly rainfall was ACCESS1-0, while MIROC-ESM-CHEM (daily air temperature) and ACCESS1-0 (monthly air temperature) were best models used in simulating air temperature. Key words: RCM, bias correction, performance, rainfall, air temperature

[1]  K. Taylor.  Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram , 2001 .

[2]  D. Jacob,et al.  Long-term simulation of Indonesian rainfall with the MPI regional model , 2004 .

[3]  D. Randall,et al.  Climate models and their evaluation , 2007 .

[4]  Jeffrey G. Arnold,et al.  Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations , 2007 .

[5]  W. Deursen,et al.  Estimates of future discharges of the river Rhine using two scenario methodologies: direct versus delta approach , 2007 .

[6]  T. Phillips,et al.  Bayesian estimation of local signal and noise in multimodel simulations of climate change , 2010 .

[7]  C. Piani,et al.  Statistical bias correction for daily precipitation in regional climate models over Europe , 2010 .

[8]  A. Gobiet,et al.  Empirical‐statistical downscaling and error correction of daily precipitation from regional climate models , 2011 .

[9]  M. Mukaka,et al.  Statistics corner: A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. , 2012, Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi.

[10]  W. Collins,et al.  Evaluation of climate models , 2013 .

[11]  A. Langousis,et al.  Regional climate models' performance in representing precipitation and temperature over selected Mediterranean areas , 2013 .

[12]  Jenica M. Allen,et al.  Statistical Downscaling and Bias Correction of Climate Model Outputs for Climate Change Impact Assessment in the U.S. Northeast , 2013 .

[13]  I. Losada,et al.  Evaluating the performance of CMIP3 and CMIP5 global climate models over the north-east Atlantic region , 2014, Climate Dynamics.

[14]  Evaluasi Curah Hujan TRMM Menggunakan Pendekatan Koreksi Bias Statistik , 2014 .

[15]  Q. Duan,et al.  Assessment of CMIP5 climate models and projected temperature changes over Northern Eurasia , 2014 .

[16]  A. Kawamura,et al.  Impact of RCM Spatial Resolution on the Reproduction of Local, Subdaily Precipitation , 2015 .

[17]  J. Šimůnek,et al.  Statistical Assessment of a Numerical Model Simulating Agro HydrochemicalProcesses in Soil under Drip Fertigated Mandarin Tree , 2015 .

[18]  Utpal Dutta,et al.  Engaging Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency and Model Efficiency Factor Indicators in Selecting and Validating Effective Light Rail System Operation and Maintenance Cost Models , 2015 .

[19]  B. Zaitchik,et al.  Perspectives on CMIP5 model performance in the Nile River headwaters regions , 2015, International journal of climatology : a journal of the Royal Meteorological Society.

[20]  Y. Her,et al.  Comparison of uncertainty in multi-parameter and multi-model ensemble hydrologic analysis of climate change , 2016 .

[21]  Shuyu Wang,et al.  Statistical downscaling and dynamical downscaling of regional climate in China: Present climate evaluations and future climate projections , 2016 .

[22]  R. Benestad,et al.  Performance of CMIP3 and CMIP5 GCMs to Simulate Observed Rainfall Characteristics over the Western Himalayan Region , 2017 .

[23]  Karsten Lehmann,et al.  Selecting a climate model subset to optimise key ensemble properties , 2017 .

[24]  M. Waseem,et al.  A REVIEW OF CRITERIA OF FIT FOR HYDROLOGICAL MODELS , 2017 .

[25]  M. Booij,et al.  Comparison between statistical and dynamical downscaling of rainfall under Representative Concentration Pathways scenarios over the Gwadar- Ormara basin, Pakistan , 2018 .

[26]  Andrew Sturman,et al.  Comparison of statistical and dynamical downscaling results from the WRF model , 2018, Environ. Model. Softw..

[27]  M. Misnawati,et al.  Perbandingan Metodologi Koreksi Bias Data Curah Hujan CHIRPS , 2018 .

[28]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis , 2013 .