Search

This paper describes the assumptions, equations, and procedures of the RheaG weather generator algorithm (WGA). RheaG was conceived for the generation of robust daily meteorological time series, whether in static or transient climate conditions. Here we analyze its performance in four Iberian locations—Bilbao, Barcelona, Madrid, and Sevilla—with differentiated climate characteristics. To validate the RheaG WGA, we compared observed and generated meteorological time series' statistical properties of precipitation, maximum temperature, and minimum temperature for all four locations. We also compared observed and simulated rain events spell length probabilities in all four locations. Finally, RheaG includes two weather generation procedures: one in which monthly mean values for meteorological variables are unconstrained and one in which they are constrained according to a predefined baseline climate variability. Here, we compare the two weather generation procedures included in RheaG using the observed data from Barcelona. Our results present a high agreement in the statistical properties and the rain spell length probabilities between observed and generated meteorological time series. Our results show that RheaG accurately reproduces seasonal patterns of the observed meteorological time series for all four locations, and it is even able to differentiate two climatic seasons in Bilbao that are also present in the observed data. We find a trade-off between generation procedures in which the unconstrained procedure better reproduces the variability of monthly and yearly precipitation than the constrained one, but the constrained procedure is able to keep the same climatic signal across meteorological time series. Thus, the first procedure is more accurate, but the latter is able to maintain spatial autocorrelation among generated meteorological time series. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes an improved edition of the climate division dataset for the conterminous United States (i.e., version 2). The first improvement is to the input data, which now include additional station networks, quality assurance reviews, and temperature bias adjustments. The second improvement is to the suite of climatic elements, which now includes both maximum and minimum temperatures. The third improvement is to the computational approach, which now employs climatologically aided interpolation to address topographic and network variability. Version 2 exhibits substantial differences from version 1 over the period 1895-2012. For example, divisional averages in version 2 tend to be cooler and wetter, particularly in mountainous areas of the western United States. Division-level trends in temperature and precipitation display greater spatial consistency in version 2. National-scale temperature trends in version 2 are comparable to those in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network whereas version 1 exhibits less warming as a result of historical changes in observing practices. Divisional errors in version 2 are likely less than 0.5°C for temperature and 20 mm for precipitation at the start of the record, falling rapidly thereafter. Overall, these results indicate that version 2 can supersede version 1 in both operational climate monitoring and applied climatic research. [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]