4.5 Article

Comparison and Evaluation of Statistical Rainfall Disaggregation and High-Resolution Dynamical Downscaling over Complex Terrain

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROMETEOROLOGY
卷 19, 期 12, 页码 1973-1982

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/JHM-D-18-0132.1

关键词

Complex terrain; Convection; Precipitation; Regional models; Stochastic models; Urban meteorology

资金

  1. Research Council of Norway [250573, 243942]
  2. Bavarian State Ministry for the Environment and Consumer Protection
  3. European Communities 7th Framework Programme [603629-ENV-2013-6.2.1-GLOBAQUA]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Representative methods of statistical disaggregation and dynamical downscaling are compared in terms of their ability to disaggregate precipitation data into hourly resolution in an urban area with complex terrain. The nonparametric statistical Method of Fragments (MoF) uses hourly data from rain gauges to split the daily data at the location of interest into hourly fragments. The high-resolution, convection-permitting Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) regional climate model is driven by reanalysis data. The MoF can reconstruct the variance, dry proportion, wet hours per month, number and length of wet spells per rainy day, timing of the maximum rainfall burst, and intensities of extreme precipitation with errors of less than 10%. However, the MoF cannot capture the spatial coherence and temporal interday connectivity of precipitation events due to the random elements involved in the algorithm. Otherwise, the statistical method is well suited for filling gaps in subdaily historical records. The WRF Model is able to reproduce dry proportion, lag-1 autocorrelation, wet hours per month, number and length of wet spells per rainy day, spatial correlation, and 6- and 12-h intensities of extreme precipitation with errors of 10% or less. The WRF approach tends to underestimate peak rainfall of 1- and 3-h aggregates but can be used where no observations are available or when areal precipitation data are needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据