Quantile-based bias-correction of extreme rainfall: Pros & cons of popular methods for climate signal preservation

• Knowledge about bias correction approaches for IDF curves requires systematization. • Bias and signal magnitude and direction can significantly affect bias correction outcomes. • Skills in preserving climate signal in the mean and quantiles depends on the adopted technique. • Skills in preserving climate signal in the variance need to be carefully verified. • Sensitivity analysis based on Gumbel distributions supports interpretation of results in real-world applications. Bias correction is a common practice in climate sciences. However, bias-corrected climate projections do not necessarily preserve signals in moments and quantiles compared to raw climate models. Focusing on extreme rainfall and Depth-Frequency curves, the goal of this paper is to demonstrate the efficacy of three popular techniques in preserving signals in the first- and second-order moments and in a selection of quantiles. With this aim, a thorough sensitivity analysis is undertaken and a real-world application leveraging a multi-model EURO-CORDEX ensemble showcases the findings. The target techniques are Quantile-Quantile Downscaling (QQD), Detrended Quantile Mapping (DetQM), and Quantile Delta Mapping (QDM). Results highlight that QQD shows significant errors in the preservation of signals in the mean and percentiles; DetQM and QQD show errors in the percentiles; QDM in the standard deviation. Errors depend not only on the bias correction technique, but also on the magnitude and accordance of the bias and the signal. The main implications are: i) a climate projection having a certain bias and signal, bias-corrected with different methods, provides different extremes; ii) climate projections having the same signal, bias-corrected with the same method, provide different extremes according to the bias magnitude; iii) physically consistent combinations of bias and signal (as those experienced in the real-world application) provide for a large uncertainty range associated to the final, bias-corrected moments and Depth-Frequency curves.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Hydrology
Published
2025-02-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.132814
Citations
6
Primary Topic
Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.80
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Quantile-based bias-correction of extreme rainfall: Pros & cons of popular methods for climate signal preservation

Roberta Padulano, Guido Rianna, L. G. Napolitano, L.A. Gomez-Mogollon
6 citations
Journal of Hydrology
Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
7.80
article

Quantile-based bias-correction of extreme rainfall: Pros & cons of popular methods for climate signal preservation

Roberta Padulano, Guido Rianna, L. G. Napolitano, L.A. Gomez-Mogollon
article en
6 citations

Abstract

• Knowledge about bias correction approaches for IDF curves requires systematization. • Bias and signal magnitude and direction can significantly affect bias correction outcomes. • Skills in preserving climate signal in the mean and quantiles depends on the adopted technique. • Skills in preserving climate signal in the variance need to be carefully verified. • Sensitivity analysis based on Gumbel distributions supports interpretation of results in real-world applications. Bias correction is a common practice in climate sciences. However, bias-corrected climate projections do not necessarily preserve signals in moments and quantiles compared to raw climate models. Focusing on extreme rainfall and Depth-Frequency curves, the goal of this paper is to demonstrate the efficacy of three popular techniques in preserving signals in the first- and second-order moments and in a selection of quantiles. With this aim, a thorough sensitivity analysis is undertaken and a real-world application leveraging a multi-model EURO-CORDEX ensemble showcases the findings. The target techniques are Quantile-Quantile Downscaling (QQD), Detrended Quantile Mapping (DetQM), and Quantile Delta Mapping (QDM). Results highlight that QQD shows significant errors in the preservation of signals in the mean and percentiles; DetQM and QQD show errors in the percentiles; QDM in the standard deviation. Errors depend not only on the bias correction technique, but also on the magnitude and accordance of the bias and the signal. The main implications are: i) a climate projection having a certain bias and signal, bias-corrected with different methods, provides different extremes; ii) climate projections having the same signal, bias-corrected with the same method, provide different extremes according to the bias magnitude; iii) physically consistent combinations of bias and signal (as those experienced in the real-world application) provide for a large uncertainty range associated to the final, bias-corrected moments and Depth-Frequency curves.

Journal of HydrologyVol. 653
Ingegneria dei Trasporti (Italy) (IT), CMCC Foundation - Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (IT), University of Naples Federico II (IT)
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
7.80
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.