Search

The systematic bias of the estimated average temperature using daily Tmax and Tmin records relative to the standard average temperature of four time-equidistant observations and its effect on the estimated trend of long-term temperature change have not been well understood. This paper attempts to evaluate the systematic bias across mainland China using the daily data of national observational stations. The results revealed that the positive bias of annual mean temperature was large, reaching 0.58°C nationally on average; regional average bias was lowest in the northwest arid region and highest in the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau; the bias was low in spring and summer and high in autumn and winter, reaching its lowest point in mid- and late May and highest point in early November. Furthermore, the bias showed a significant upward trend in the past 50 years, with a rising rate of 0.021°C (10 yr)−1, accounting for about 12% of the overall warming as estimated from the data of the observational network; the largest positive trend bias was found in the northwest arid region, while the east monsoon region experienced the smallest change; the most remarkable increase of the bias occurred after early 1990s. These results indicate that the customarily applied method to calculate daily and monthly mean temperature using Tmax and Tmin significantly overestimates the climatological mean and the long-term trend of surface air temperature in mainland China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, wintertime precipitation from a variety of observational datasets, regional climate models (RCMs), and general circulation models (GCMs) is averaged over the state of California and compared. Several averaging methodologies are considered and all are found to give similar values when the model grid spacing is less than 3°. This suggests that California is a reasonable size for regional intercomparisons using modern GCMs. Results show that reanalysis-forced RCMs tend to significantly overpredict California precipitation. This appears to be due mainly to the overprediction of extreme events; RCM precipitation frequency is generally underpredicted. Overprediction is also reflected in wintertime precipitation variability, which tends to be too high for RCMs on both daily and interannual scales. Wintertime precipitation in most (but not all) GCMs is underestimated. This is in contrast to previous studies based on global blended gauge-satellite observations, which are shown here to underestimate precipitation relative to higher-resolution gauge-only datasets. Several GCMs provide reasonable daily precipitation distributions, a trait that does not seem to be tied to model resolution. The GCM daily and interannual variabilities are generally underpredicted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]