Finding appropriate bias correction methods in downscaling precipitation for hydrologic impact studies over North America

This work compares the performance of six bias correction methods for hydrological modeling over 10 North American river basins. Four regional climate model (RCM) simulations driven by reanalysis data taken from the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program intercomparison project are used to evaluate the sensitivity of bias correction methods to climate models. The hydrological impacts of bias correction methods are assessed through the comparison of streamflows simulated by a lumped empirical hydrology model (HSAMI) using raw RCM‐simulated and bias‐corrected precipitation time series. The results show that RCMs are biased in the simulation of precipitation, which results in biased simulated streamflows. All six bias correction methods are capable of improving the RCM‐simulated precipitation in the representation of watershed streamflows to a certain degree. However, the performance of hydrological modeling depends on the choice of a bias correction method and the location of a watershed. Moreover, distribution‐based methods are consistently better than mean‐based methods. A low coherence between the temporal sequences of observed and RCM‐simulated (driven by reanalysis data) precipitation was observed over 5 of the 10 watersheds studied. All bias corrections methods fail over these basins due to their inability to specifically correct the temporal structure of daily precipitation occurrence, which is critical for hydrology modeling. In this study, this failure occurred on basins that were distant from the RCM model boundaries and where topography exerted little control over precipitation. These results indicate that bias correction performance is location dependent and that a careful validation should always be performed, especially on studies over new regions.