Skip to content
Research Article Open access CC BY 4.0

Statistical Bias Correction of Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Data from the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security - Climate Portal for Mount Makulu, Zambia

Charles Bwalya Chisanga, Elijah Phiri, Vernon R. N. Chinene

Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology · pp. 1–16 · Published 10 Jun 2017

10.9734/BJAST/2017/33531

Abstract

Although Global Climate Models (GCMs) are regarded as the best tools available for future climate projections, there are biases in simulating precipitation and temperature due to their coarse spatial resolution and cannot be used directly to assess the impact of projected climate change. The study objective was to investigate how bias correction methods impact the modelled future climate change under Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) for 2020-2050.Reanalysisdata (1980-2000) and bias correction approaches (change factor [CF], nudging and Quantile Mapping [QM]) were used to calibrate GCMs [GFDL-ESM2M, MIROC-MIROC5, MPI-ESM-MR, and NCAR-CCSM4] data under RCP8.5 scenarios (2020-2050) for Mount Makulu, Zambia (latitude: 15.550° S, longitude: 28.250° E, altitude: 1200 m). Bias correction methods enable the comparison of observed and modelled impacts between the future climate scenarios and the baseline. A widely used bias correction method is the QM. QM adjusts a GCM value by mapping quantiles of the model’s distribution onto quantiles of the observed time series data. In spite of nudging being robust and easy to implement, it suppresses high-frequency variability and introduces artificial phase shifts. CF cannot provide information on future climate changes in high frequency variability that may be critical for specific impact applications such as estimates of peak discharge in hydrological catchments or inputs for crop models. Future climate signals shows that the number of days with and the amount of precipitation (mm/year) for 2020-2050 would range from 62 - 92 days and 211.9 - 906 mm/year, respectively. On the other hand, maximum and minimum temperature would increase in the in the range of 1.23 - 1.97°C and 1.45 - 2.68°C, respectively. QM can be used for precipitation while the CF can be used for temperature. Nudging is a widely used technique for online bias reduction, where modelled fields are continuously forced toward observed climatology.

Calibration change factor bias correction quantile mapping CCAFS AgMERRA GCMs

References (32)

  1. 1 Climate change 2007 : the physical science basis : contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  2. 2 Development of a 50-Year High-Resolution Global Dataset of Meteorological Forcings for Land Surface Modeling [DOI]
  3. 3 Statistical bias correction for daily precipitation in regional climate models over Europe [DOI]
  4. 4 The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP): Protocols and pilot studies [DOI]
  5. 5 Creation of the WATCH Forcing Data and Its Use to Assess Global and Regional Reference Crop Evaporation over Land during the Twentieth Century [DOI]
  6. 6 Climate forcing datasets for agricultural modeling: Merged products for gap-filling and historical climate series estimation [DOI]
  7. 7 Improved Bias Correction Techniques for Hydrological Simulations of Climate Change* [DOI]
  8. 8 Calibration and bias correction of climate projections for crop modelling: An idealised case study over Europe [DOI]
  9. 9 Scaled distribution mapping: a bias correction method that preserves raw climate model projected changes [DOI]
  10. 10 Calibration Strategies: A Source of Additional Uncertainty in Climate Change Projections [DOI]
  11. 11 Bias correction can modify climate model simulated precipitation changes without adverse effect on the ensemble mean [DOI]
  12. 12 Impacts of climate change on streamflows under RCP scenarios: A case study in Xin River Basin, China [DOI]
  13. 13 Empirical approaches for assessing impacts of climate change on agriculture: The EcoCrop model and a case study with grain sorghum [DOI]
  14. 14 How does bias correction of regional climate model precipitation affect modelled runoff? [DOI]
  15. 15 Multi-factor impact analysis of agricultural production in Bangladesh with climate change [DOI]
  16. 16 High‐resolution multisite daily rainfall projections in India with statistical downscaling for climate change impacts assessment [DOI]
  17. 17 Climate change impact uncertainties for maize in Panama: Farm information, climate projections, and yield sensitivities [DOI]
  18. 18 Prediction of leaf appearance in wheat: a question of temperature [DOI]
  19. 19 Conditioning model output statistics of regional climate model precipitation on circulation patterns [DOI]
  20. 20 Impact of Water Stress on Maize Grown Off‐Season in a Subtropical Environment [DOI]
  21. 21 Evaluation of the APSIM-Wheat model in terms of different cultivars, management regimes and environmental conditions [DOI]
  22. 22 Stochastic Model Output Statistics for Bias Correcting and Downscaling Precipitation Including Extremes [DOI]
  23. 23 Expected Future Precipitation in Central Iraq Using LARS-WG Stochastic Weather Generator [DOI]
  24. 24 AgMIP Climate Data and Scenarios for Integrated Assessment [DOI]
  25. 25 Evaluating CERES-Maize Model Using Planting Dates and Nitrogen Fertilizer in Zambia [DOI]
  26. 26 Interpreting climate model projections of extreme weather events [DOI]
  27. 27 An assessment of the skill of downscaled GCM outputs in simulating historical patterns of rainfall variability in South Africa [DOI]
  28. 28 A meteorological forcing data set for global crop modeling: Development, evaluation, and intercomparison [DOI]
  29. 29 Appendix 2. Guide for Running AgMIP Climate Scenario Generation Tools with R in Windows, Version 2.3
  30. 30 Managing climate change scenarios for societal impact studies [DOI]
  31. 31 Assessing the utility of frequency dependent nudging for reducing biases in biogeochemical models [DOI]
  32. 32 Bias-correction in the CCAFS-Climate Portal: A description of methodologies

Cited by 14

Evaluating satellite rainfall products against ground-based observations over Zambia

Charles Bwalya Chisanga, Edson Nkonde, E. Phiri · Discover Geoscience · 2026

Hydrological response under CMIP6 climate projection in Astore River Basin, Pakistan

Zeshan Ali, M. Iqbal, I. Khan · Journal of Mountain Science · 2023

Evaluating the robustness of IMD gridded data of temperature and rainfall with/without statistical bias correction techniques

Agatambidi Bala Krishna, Prabhjyot-Kaur, Samanpreet Kaur · Arabian Journal of Geosciences · 2025

Showing 8 of 14 known citations — external sources report more than can currently be individually listed.

Article metrics

Real usage data collected on this platform.

41

Page views

0

PDF downloads

18

Outbound clicks

14

Citations

Views over time

Views by country

Approximate, from request IP at view time — not citizenship or institution. Countries with fewer than 5 views are grouped as "Other".

Traffic sources

Referring site, by host.

Views and downloads exclude known bots/crawlers. Citations combines this platform's own DOI-resolved index with each external source's own reported total — see Cited by above for individually listed citing works. Last refreshed 0 seconds ago.