International Journal of Climatology
VALUE SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

The VALUE perfect predictor experiment: Evaluation of temporal variability

Douglas Maraun

Corresponding Author

E-mail address: douglas.maraun@uni-graz.at

Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change, University of Graz, Graz, Austria

Correspondence

Douglas Maraun, Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change, University of Graz, Brandhofgasse 5, 8010 Graz, Austria.

Email: douglas.maraun@uni-graz.at

Search for more papers by this author
Radan Huth

Department of Physical Geography and Geoecology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

Institute of Atmospheric Physics Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic

Search for more papers by this author
José M. Gutiérrez

Institute of Physics of Cantabria (IFCA), University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain

Search for more papers by this author
Daniel San Martín

Predictia Intelligent Data Solutions SL, Santander, Spain

Search for more papers by this author
Martin Dubrovsky

Institute of Atmospheric Physics Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic

Search for more papers by this author
Andreas Fischer

Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss, Zurich, Switzerland

Search for more papers by this author
Elke Hertig

Institute of Geography, Augsburg University, Augsburg, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
Pedro M. M. Soares

Instituto Dom Luiz, Faculdade de Ciencias, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

Search for more papers by this author
Judit Bartholy

Department of Meteorology, Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary

Search for more papers by this author
Rita Pongrácz

Department of Meteorology, Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary

Search for more papers by this author
Martin Widmann

School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Maria J. Casado

Agencia Estatal de Meteorologia (AEMET), Madrid, Spain

Search for more papers by this author
Petra Ramos

Delegacion Territorial de AEMET en Andalucía, Ceuta y Melilla, Sevilla, Spain

Search for more papers by this author
Joaquín Bedia

Predictia Intelligent Data Solutions SL, Santander, Spain

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 18 August 2017
Citations: 25
Funding information EU COST Association, Grant/Award Number: ES1102; Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports of theCzech Republic, Grant/AwardNumber:LD12029
Get access to the full version of this article. View access options below.
Institutional Login
Loading institution options...

If you have previously obtained access with your personal account, .

    • View the article PDF and any associated supplements and figures for a period of 48 hours.
    • Article can not be printed.
    • Article can not be downloaded.
    • Article can not be redistributed.
    • Unlimited viewing of the article PDF and any associated supplements and figures.
    • Article can not be printed.
    • Article can not be downloaded.
    • Article can not be redistributed.
    • Unlimited viewing of the article/chapter PDF and any associated supplements and figures.
    • Article/chapter can be printed.
    • Article/chapter can be downloaded.
    • Article/chapter can not be redistributed.

Abstract

Temporal variability is an important feature of climate, comprising systematic variations such as the annual cycle, as well as residual temporal variations such as short‐term variations, spells and variability from interannual to long‐term trends. The EU‐COST Action VALUE developed a comprehensive framework to evaluate downscaling methods. Here we present the evaluation of the perfect predictor experiment for temporal variability. Overall, the behaviour of the different approaches turned out to be as expected from their structure and implementation. The chosen regional climate model adds value to reanalysis data for most considered aspects, for all seasons and for both temperature and precipitation. Bias correction methods do not directly modify temporal variability apart from the annual cycle. However, wet day corrections substantially improve transition probabilities and spell length distributions, whereas interannual variability is in some cases deteriorated by quantile mapping. The performance of perfect prognosis (PP) statistical downscaling methods varies strongly from aspect to aspect and method to method, and depends strongly on the predictor choice. Unconditional weather generators tend to perform well for the aspects they have been calibrated for, but underrepresent long spells and interannual variability. Long‐term temperature trends of the driving model are essentially unchanged by bias correction methods. If precipitation trends are not well simulated by the driving model, bias correction further deteriorates these trends. The performance of PP methods to simulate trends depends strongly on the chosen predictors.