Articles | Volume 17, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2113-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2113-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Data description paper
| 
20 May 2025
Data description paper |
| 20 May 2025
| 20 May 2025
Two sets of bias-corrected regional UK Climate Projections 2018 (UKCP18) of temperature, precipitation and potential evapotranspiration for Great Britain
Nele Reyniers
Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
Nans Addor
Fathom, Bristol, UK
Geography, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Timothy J. Osborn
Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
Water security research centre, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
Nicole Forstenhäusler
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
Related authors
Nele Reyniers, Timothy J. Osborn, Nans Addor, and Geoff Darch
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1151–1171, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1151-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1151-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In an analysis of future drought projections for Great Britain based on the Standardised Precipitation Index and the Standardised Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index, we show that the choice of drought indicator has a decisive influence on the resulting projected changes in drought characteristics, although both result in increased drying. This highlights the need to understand the interplay between increasing atmospheric evaporative demand and drought impacts under a changing climate.
Olivier Delaigue, Guilherme Mendoza Guimarães, Pierre Brigode, Benoît Génot, Charles Perrin, Jean-Michel Soubeyroux, Bruno Janet, Nans Addor, and Vazken Andréassian
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 1461–1479, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-1461-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-1461-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This dataset covers 654 rivers all flowing in France. The provided time series and catchment attributes will be of interest to those modelers wishing to analyze hydrological behavior and perform model assessments.
Colin Peter Morice, David I. Berry, Richard C. Cornes, Kathryn Cowtan, Thomas Cropper, Ed Hawkins, John J. Kennedy, Timothy J. Osborn, Nick A. Rayner, Beatriz R. Rivas, Andrew P. Schurer, Michael Taylor, Praveen R. Teleti, Emily J. Wallis, Jonathan Winn, and Elizabeth C. Kent
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-500, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-500, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new data set of global gridded surface air temperature change extending back to the 1780s. This is achieved using marine air temperature observations with newly available estimates of diurnal heating biases together with an updated land station database that includes bias adjustments for early thermometer enclosures. These developments allow the data set to extend further into the past than current data sets that use sea surface temperature rather than marine air temperature data.
Claudia Färber, Henning Plessow, Simon Mischel, Frederik Kratzert, Nans Addor, Guy Shalev, and Ulrich Looser
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-427, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-427, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
Large-sample datasets are essential in hydrological science to support modelling studies and advance process understanding. Caravan is a community initiative to create a large-sample hydrology dataset of meteorological forcing data, catchment attributes, and discharge data for catchments around the world. This dataset is a subset of hydrological discharge data and station-based watersheds from the Global Runoff Data Centre (GRDC), which are covered by an open data policy.
Marvin Höge, Martina Kauzlaric, Rosi Siber, Ursula Schönenberger, Pascal Horton, Jan Schwanbeck, Marius Günter Floriancic, Daniel Viviroli, Sibylle Wilhelm, Anna E. Sikorska-Senoner, Nans Addor, Manuela Brunner, Sandra Pool, Massimiliano Zappa, and Fabrizio Fenicia
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5755–5784, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5755-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5755-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
CAMELS-CH is an open large-sample hydro-meteorological data set that covers 331 catchments in hydrologic Switzerland from 1 January 1981 to 31 December 2020. It comprises (a) daily data of river discharge and water level as well as meteorologic variables like precipitation and temperature; (b) yearly glacier and land cover data; (c) static attributes of, e.g, topography or human impact; and (d) catchment delineations. CAMELS-CH enables water and climate research and modeling at catchment level.
Nele Reyniers, Timothy J. Osborn, Nans Addor, and Geoff Darch
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1151–1171, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1151-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1151-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In an analysis of future drought projections for Great Britain based on the Standardised Precipitation Index and the Standardised Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index, we show that the choice of drought indicator has a decisive influence on the resulting projected changes in drought characteristics, although both result in increased drying. This highlights the need to understand the interplay between increasing atmospheric evaporative demand and drought impacts under a changing climate.
Florian Ehmele, Lisa-Ann Kautz, Hendrik Feldmann, Yi He, Martin Kadlec, Fanni D. Kelemen, Hilke S. Lentink, Patrick Ludwig, Desmond Manful, and Joaquim G. Pinto
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 677–692, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-677-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-677-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
For various applications, it is crucial to have profound knowledge of the frequency, severity, and risk of extreme flood events. Such events are characterized by very long return periods which observations can not cover. We use a large ensemble of regional climate model simulations as input for a hydrological model. Precipitation data were post-processed to reduce systematic errors. The representation of precipitation and discharge is improved, and estimates of long return periods become robust.
Andrew J. Newman, Amanda G. Stone, Manabendra Saharia, Kathleen D. Holman, Nans Addor, and Martyn P. Clark
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5603–5621, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5603-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5603-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study assesses methods that estimate flood return periods to identify when we would obtain a large flood return estimate change if the method or input data were changed (sensitivities). We include an examination of multiple flood-generating models, which is a novel addition to the flood estimation literature. We highlight the need to select appropriate flood models for the study watershed. These results will help operational water agencies develop more robust risk assessments.
Peter T. La Follette, Adriaan J. Teuling, Nans Addor, Martyn Clark, Koen Jansen, and Lieke A. Melsen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5425–5446, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5425-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5425-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Hydrological models are useful tools that allow us to predict distributions and movement of water. A variety of numerical methods are used by these models. We demonstrate which numerical methods yield large errors when subject to extreme precipitation. As the climate is changing such that extreme precipitation is more common, we find that some numerical methods are better suited for use in hydrological models. Also, we find that many current hydrological models use relatively inaccurate methods.
John P. Bloomfield, Mengyi Gong, Benjamin P. Marchant, Gemma Coxon, and Nans Addor
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5355–5379, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5355-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5355-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Groundwater provides flow, known as baseflow, to surface streams and rivers. It is important as it sustains the flow of many rivers at times of water stress. However, it may be affected by water management practices. Statistical models have been used to show that abstraction of groundwater may influence baseflow. Consequently, it is recommended that information on groundwater abstraction is included in future assessments and predictions of baseflow.
Keirnan J. A. Fowler, Suwash Chandra Acharya, Nans Addor, Chihchung Chou, and Murray C. Peel
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 3847–3867, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3847-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3847-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents the Australian edition of the Catchment Attributes and Meteorology for Large-sample Studies (CAMELS) series of datasets. CAMELS-AUS comprises data for 222 unregulated catchments with long-term monitoring, combining hydrometeorological time series (streamflow and 18 climatic variables) with 134 attributes related to geology, soil, topography, land cover, anthropogenic influence and hydroclimatology. It is freely downloadable from https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.921850.
Peter Uhe, Daniel Mitchell, Paul D. Bates, Nans Addor, Jeff Neal, and Hylke E. Beck
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4865–4890, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4865-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4865-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present a cascade of models to compute high-resolution river flooding. This takes meteorological inputs, e.g., rainfall and temperature from observations or climate models, and takes them through a series of modeling steps. This is relevant to evaluating current day and future flood risk and impacts. The model framework uses global data sets, allowing it to be applied anywhere in the world.
Gemma Coxon, Nans Addor, John P. Bloomfield, Jim Freer, Matt Fry, Jamie Hannaford, Nicholas J. K. Howden, Rosanna Lane, Melinda Lewis, Emma L. Robinson, Thorsten Wagener, and Ross Woods
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2459–2483, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2459-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2459-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We present the first large-sample catchment hydrology dataset for Great Britain. The dataset collates river flows, catchment attributes, and catchment boundaries for 671 catchments across Great Britain. We characterise the topography, climate, streamflow, land cover, soils, hydrogeology, human influence, and discharge uncertainty of each catchment. The dataset is publicly available for the community to use in a wide range of environmental and modelling analyses.
Vinícius B. P. Chagas, Pedro L. B. Chaffe, Nans Addor, Fernando M. Fan, Ayan S. Fleischmann, Rodrigo C. D. Paiva, and Vinícius A. Siqueira
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2075–2096, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2075-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2075-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new dataset for large-sample hydrological studies in Brazil. The dataset encompasses daily observed streamflow from 3679 gauges, as well as meteorological forcing for 897 selected catchments. It also includes 65 attributes covering topographic, climatic, hydrologic, land cover, geologic, soil, and human intervention variables. CAMELS-BR is publicly available and will enable new insights into the hydrological behavior of catchments in Brazil.
Cited articles
Addor, N. and Seibert, J.: Bias Correction for Hydrological Impact Studies – beyond the Daily Perspective: INVITED COMMENTARY, Hydrol. Process., 28, 4823–4828, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10238, 2014. a
Addor, N., Rohrer, M., Furrer, R., and Seibert, J.: Propagation of Biases in Climate Models from the Synoptic to the Regional Scale: Implications for Bias Adjustment: Circulation Biases in RCM Simulations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 2075–2089, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024040, 2016. a
Arnell, N. W., Kay, A. L., Freeman, A., Rudd, A. C., and Lowe, J. A.: Changing Climate Risk in the UK: A Multi-Sectoral Analysis Using Policy-Relevant Indicators, Climate Risk Management, 31, 100265, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2020.100265, 2021. a, b
Azmat, M., Qamar, M. U., Huggel, C., and Hussain, E.: Future climate and cryosphere impacts on the hydrology of a scarcely gauged catchment on the Jhelum river basin, Northern Pakistan, Sci. Total Environ., 639, 961–976, 2018. a
Bruyère, C. L., Done, J. M., Holland, G. J., and Fredrick, S.: Bias corrections of global models for regional climate simulations of high-impact weather, Clim. Dynam., 43, 1847–1856, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-2011-6, 2014. a
Cannon, A. J.: Multivariate Bias Correction of Climate Model Output: Matching Marginal Distributions and Intervariable Dependence Structure, J. Climate, 29, 7045–7064, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0679.1, 2016. a
Cannon, A. J.: Multivariate Quantile Mapping Bias Correction: An N-dimensional Probability Density Function Transform for Climate Model Simulations of Multiple Variables, Clim. Dynam., 50, 31–49, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3580-6, 2018. a
Chen, J., Brissette, F. P., and Lucas-Picher, P.: Assessing the Limits of Bias-Correcting Climate Model Outputs for Climate Change Impact Studies, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 1123–1136, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022635, 2015. a
Chen, J., Brissette, F. P., Zhang, X. J., Chen, H., Guo, S., and Zhao, Y.: Bias Correcting Climate Model Multi-Member Ensembles to Assess Climate Change Impacts on Hydrology, Climatic Change, 153, 361–377, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02393-x, 2019. a
Dewes, C. F., Rangwala, I., Barsugli, J. J., Hobbins, M. T., and Kumar, S.: Drought Risk Assessment under Climate Change Is Sensitive to Methodological Choices for the Estimation of Evaporative Demand, PLOS ONE, 12, e0174045, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174045, 2017. a
Ehret, U., Zehe, E., Wulfmeyer, V., Warrach-Sagi, K., and Liebert, J.: HESS Opinions “Should we apply bias correction to global and regional climate model data?”, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 3391–3404, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3391-2012, 2012. a
Enayati, M., Bozorg-Haddad, O., Bazrafshan, J., Hejabi, S., and Chu, X.: Bias correction capabilities of quantile mapping methods for rainfall and temperature variables, J. Water Clim. Change, 12, 401–419, https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2020.261, 2021. a, b
Fang, G. H., Yang, J., Chen, Y. N., and Zammit, C.: Comparing bias correction methods in downscaling meteorological variables for a hydrologic impact study in an arid area in China, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 2547–2559, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2547-2015, 2015. a
Fung, F., Lowe, J., Mitchell, J. F. B., Murphy, J., Bernie, D., Gohar, L., Harris, G., Howard, T., Kendon, E., Maisey, P., Palmer, M., and Sexton, D.: UKCP18 Guidance: How to Use the UKCP18 Land Projections, Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/research/ukcp/ukcp18-guidance---how-to-use-the-land-projections.pdf (last access: 18 April 2024), 2018. a
Greve, P., Roderick, M. L., Ukkola, A. M., and Wada, Y.: The Aridity Index under Global Warming, Environ. Res. Lett., 14, 124006, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab5046, 2019. a
Griffin, A., Kay, A. L., Sayers, P., Bell, V., Stewart, E., and Carr, S.: Widespread flooding dynamics under climate change: characterising floods using grid-based hydrological modelling and regional climate projections, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2635–2650, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2635-2024, 2024. a
Gudde, R., He, Y., Pasquier, U., Forstenhäusler, N., Noble, C., and Zha, Q.: Quantifying future changes of flood hazards within the Broadland catchment in the UK, Nat. Hazards, 120, 9893–9915, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06590-5, 2024. a
Gudmundsson, L., Wagener, T., Tallaksen, L. M., and Engeland, K.: Evaluation of Nine Large-Scale Hydrological Models with Respect to the Seasonal Runoff Climatology in Europe, Water Resour. Res., 48, W11504, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010911, 2012. a, b
Gutmann, E., Pruitt, T., Clark, M. P., Brekke, L., Arnold, J. R., Raff, D. A., and Rasmussen, R. M.: An Intercomparison of Statistical Downscaling Methods Used for Water Resource Assessments in the United States, Water Resour. Res., 50, 7167–7186, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015559, 2014. a
Hakala, K., Addor, N., and Seibert, J.: Hydrological Modeling to Evaluate Climate Model Simulations and Their Bias Correction, J. Hydrometeorol., 19, 1321–1337, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-17-0189.1, 2018. a
Hakala, K., Addor, N., Gobbe, T., Ruffieux, J., and Seibert, J.: Risks and opportunities for a Swiss hydroelectricity company in a changing climate, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 3815–3833, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-3815-2020, 2020. a
Hanlon, H. M., Bernie, D., Carigi, G., and Lowe, J. A.: Future Changes to High Impact Weather in the UK, Climatic Change, 166, 50, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03100-5, 2021. a, b, c
Hannaford, J., Mackay, J. D., Ascott, M., Bell, V. A., Chitson, T., Cole, S., Counsell, C., Durant, M., Jackson, C. R., Kay, A. L., Lane, R. A., Mansour, M., Moore, R., Parry, S., Rudd, A. C., Simpson, M., Facer-Childs, K., Turner, S., Wallbank, J. R., Wells, S., and Wilcox, A.: The enhanced future Flows and Groundwater dataset: development and evaluation of nationally consistent hydrological projections based on UKCP18, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 2391–2415, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2391-2023, 2023. a, b
Hollis, D., McCarthy, M., Kendon, M., Legg, T., and Simpson, I.: HadUK-Grid – A New UK Dataset of Gridded Climate Observations, Geosci. Data J., 6, 151–159, https://doi.org/10.1002/gdj3.78, 2019. a, b
Hui, Y., Xu, Y., Chen, J., Xu, C.-Y., and Chen, H.: Impacts of Bias Nonstationarity of Climate Model Outputs on Hydrological Simulations, Hydrol. Res., 51, 925–941, https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2020.254, 2020. a
IPCC: Annex VI: Climatic Impact-driver and Extreme Indices, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2205–2214, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.020, 2021. a
Kay, A. L., Watts, G., Wells, S. C., and Allen, S.: The Impact of Climate Change on U. K. River Flows: A Preliminary Comparison of Two Generations of Probabilistic Climate Projections, Hydrol. Process., 34, 1081–1088, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13644, 2020. a, b
Kay, A. L., Bell, V. A., Davies, H. N., Lane, R. A., and Rudd, A. C.: The UKSCAPE-G2G river flow and soil moisture datasets: Grid-to-Grid model estimates for the UK for historical and potential future climates, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 2533–2546, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2533-2023, 2023. a
Kennedy-Asser, A. T., Owen, G., Griffith, G. J., Andrews, O., Lo, Y. E., Mitchell, D. M., Jenkins, K., and Warren, R. F.: Projected risks associated with heat stress in the UK Climate Projections (UKCP18), Environ. Res. Lett., 17, 034024, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac541a, 2022. a
Kim, Y., Evans, J. P., and Sharma, A.: Can Sub-Daily Multivariate Bias Correction of Regional Climate Model Boundary Conditions Improve Simulation of the Diurnal Precipitation Cycle?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 50, e2023GL104442, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL104442, 2023a. a
Kim, Y., Evans, J. P., and Sharma, A.: A software for correcting systematic biases in RCM input boundary conditions, Environ. Modell. Softw., 168, 105799, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2023.105799, 2023b. a
Kotlarski, S., Keuler, K., Christensen, O. B., Colette, A., Déqué, M., Gobiet, A., Goergen, K., Jacob, D., Lüthi, D., van Meijgaard, E., Nikulin, G., Schär, C., Teichmann, C., Vautard, R., Warrach-Sagi, K., and Wulfmeyer, V.: Regional climate modeling on European scales: a joint standard evaluation of the EURO-CORDEX RCM ensemble, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 1297–1333, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1297-2014, 2014. a
Lafon, T., Dadson, S., Buys, G., and Prudhomme, C.: Bias Correction of Daily Precipitation Simulated by a Regional Climate Model: A Comparison of Methods, Int. J. Climatol., 33, 1367–1381, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3518, 2013. a
Lane, R. A. and Kay, A.: Gridded simulations of available precipitation (rainfall + snowmelt) for Great Britain, developed from observed data (1961–2018) and climate projections (1980–2080), NERC EDS Environmental Information Data Centre [data set], https://doi.org/10.5285/755e0369-f8db-4550-aabe-3f9c9fbcb93d, 2022. a
Lo, Y. T. E., Mitchell, D. M., Bohnenstengel, S. I., Collins, M., Hawkins, E., Hegerl, G. C., Joshi, M., and Stott, P. A.: U.K. Climate Projections: Summer Daytime and Nighttime Urban Heat Island Changes in England's Major Cities, J. Climate, 33, 9015–9030, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0961.1, 2020. a
Lowe, J. A., Bernie, D., Bett, P., Bricheno, L., Brown, S., Calvert, D., Clark, R., Edwards, T., Fosser, G., Fung, F., Gohar, L., Good, P., Gregory, J., Harris, G., Howard, T., Kaye, N., Kendon, E., Krijnen, J., Maisey, P., McDonald, R., McInnes, R., McSweeney, C., Mitchell, J. F. B., Murphy, J., Palmer, M., Roberts, C., Rostron, J., Thornton, H., Tinker, J., Tucker, S., Yamazaki, K., and Belcher, S.: UKCP18 Science Overview Report, Tech. rep., Met Office, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/ukcp18/science-reports/UKCP18-Overview-report.pdf (last access: 18 April 2024), 2018. a
Maraun, D.: Nonstationarities of Regional Climate Model Biases in European Seasonal Mean Temperature and Precipitation Sums, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L06706, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051210, 2012. a
Maraun, D., Shepherd, T. G., Widmann, M., Zappa, G., Walton, D., Gutierrez, J. M., Hagemann, S., Richter, I., Soares, P. M. M., Hall, A., and Mearns, L. O.: Towards Process-Informed Bias Correction of Climate Change Simulations, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 764–773, https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE3418, 2017. a, b
Maraun, D., Widmann, M., and Gutiérrez, J. M.: Statistical Downscaling Skill under Present Climate Conditions: A Synthesis of the VALUE Perfect Predictor Experiment, Int. J. Climatol., 39, 3692–3703, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5877, 2019. a
Met Office, Hollis, D., McCarthy, M., Kendon, M., Legg, T., and Simpson, I.: HadUK-Grid Gridded Climate Observations on a 1km grid over the UK, v1.0.1.0 (1862–2018), CEDA Archive [data set], https://doi.org/10.5285/D134335808894B2BB249E9F2 22E2ECA8, 2019. a
Milly, P. C. D. and Dunne, K. A.: Potential Evapotranspiration and Continental Drying, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 946–949, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3046, 2016. a
Murphy, J. M., Harris, G. R., Sexton, D. M. H., Kendon, E. J., Bett, P. E., Clark, R. T., Eagle, K. E., Fosser, G., Fung, F., Lowe, J. A., McDonald, R. E., McInnes, R. N., McSweeney, C. F., Mitchell, J. F. B., Rostron, J. W., Thornton, H. E., Tucker, S., and Yamazaki, K.: UKCP18 Land Projections: Science Report, Tech. rep., Met Office, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/ukcp18/science-reports/UKCP18-Land-report.pdf (last access: 18 April 2024), 2018. a, b
Pastén-Zapata, E., Jones, J. M., Moggridge, H., and Widmann, M.: Evaluation of the Performance of Euro-CORDEX Regional Climate Models for Assessing Hydrological Climate Change Impacts in Great Britain: A Comparison of Different Spatial Resolutions and Quantile Mapping Bias Correction Methods, J. Hydrol., 584, 124653, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124653, 2020. a
Pendergrass, A. G. and Knutti, R.: The Uneven Nature of Daily Precipitation and Its Change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 11980–11988, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080298, 2018. a
Piani, C., Haerter, J. O., and Coppola, E.: Statistical Bias Correction for Daily Precipitation in Regional Climate Models over Europe, Theor. Appl. Climatol., 99, 187–192, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-009-0134-9, 2010. a
Prudhomme, C., Young, A., Watts, G., Haxton, T., Crooks, S., Williamson, J., Davies, H., Dadson, S., and Allen, S.: The Drying up of Britain? A National Estimate of Changes in Seasonal River Flows from 11 Regional Climate Model Simulations, Hydrol. Process., 26, 1115–1118, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8434, 2012. a
Reyniers, N., Addor, N., Zha, Q., Osborn, T., Forstenhäusler, N., and He, Y.: UKCP18 RCM precipitation and temperature bias corrected using ISIMIP3BA change-preserving quantile mapping, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6337381, 2022a. a, b
Reyniers, N., Osborn, T., Addor, N., and Darch, G.: Projected Changes in Droughts and Extreme Droughts in Great Britain Are Strongly Influenced by the Choice of Drought Index: UKCP18-based Bias Adjusted Potential Evapotranspiration, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6320707, 2022b. a, b
Reyniers, N., Osborn, T. J., Addor, N., and Darch, G.: Projected changes in droughts and extreme droughts in Great Britain strongly influenced by the choice of drought index, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1151–1171, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1151-2023, 2023. a
Riahi, K., Rao, S., Krey, V., Cho, C., Chirkov, V., Fischer, G., Kindermann, G., Nakicenovic, N., and Rafaj, P.: RCP 8.5 – A Scenario of Comparatively High Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climatic Change, 109, 33, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y, 2011. a
Robinson, E., Blyth, E., Clark, D., Comyn-Platt, E., and Rudd, A.: Climate Hydrology and Ecology Research Support System Potential Evapotranspiration Dataset for Great Britain (1961–2017) [CHESS-PE], NERC Environmental Information Data Centre [data set], https://doi.org/10.5285/9116e565-2c0a-455b-9c68-558fdd9179ad, 2020b. a, b
Robertson, D. E., Chiew, F. H. S., and Potter, N.: Adapting rainfall bias-corrections to improve hydrological simulations generated from climate model forcings, J. Hydrol., 619, 129322, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129322, 2023. a
Robinson, E., Blyth, E., Clark, D., and Comyn-Platt, E., and Rudd, A.: Climate hydrology and ecology research support system meteorology dataset for Great Britain (1961–2017) [CHESS-met], UK CEH [data set], https://doi.org/10.5285/2ab15bf0-ad08-415c-ba64-831168be7293, 2020a. a
Robinson, E. L., Blyth, E. M., Clark, D. B., Finch, J., and Rudd, A. C.: Trends in atmospheric evaporative demand in Great Britain using high-resolution meteorological data, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1189–1224, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-1189-2017, 2017. a
Robinson, E. L., Huntingford, C., Semeena, V. S., and Bullock, J. M.: CHESS-SCAPE: high-resolution future projections of multiple climate scenarios for the United Kingdom derived from downscaled United Kingdom Climate Projections 2018 regional climate model output, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5371–5401, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5371-2023, 2023. a
Rojas, R., Feyen, L., Dosio, A., and Bavera, D.: Improving pan-European hydrological simulation of extreme events through statistical bias correction of RCM-driven climate simulations, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 2599–2620, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-2599-2011, 2011. a
Switanek, M. B., Troch, P. A., Castro, C. L., Leuprecht, A., Chang, H.-I., Mukherjee, R., and Demaria, E. M. C.: Scaled distribution mapping: a bias correction method that preserves raw climate model projected changes, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 2649–2666, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2649-2017, 2017. a, b
Teng, J., Potter, N. J., Chiew, F. H. S., Zhang, L., Wang, B., Vaze, J., and Evans, J. P.: How does bias correction of regional climate model precipitation affect modelled runoff?, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 711–728, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-711-2015, 2015. a
Teutschbein, C. and Seibert, J.: Bias Correction of Regional Climate Model Simulations for Hydrological Climate-Change Impact Studies: Review and Evaluation of Different Methods, J. Hydrol., 456–457, 12–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.05.052, 2012. a, b, c
van der Wiel, K., Selten, F. M., Bintanja, R., Blackport, R., and Screen, J. A.: Ensemble Climate-Impact Modelling: Extreme Impacts from Moderate Meteorological Conditions, Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 034050, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7668, 2020. a
Vautard, R., Kadygrov, N., Iles, C., Boberg, F., Buonomo, E., Bülow, K., Coppola, E., Corre, L., van Meijgaard, E., Nogherotto, R., Sandstad, M., Schwingshackl, C., Somot, S., Aalbers, E., Christensen, O. B., Ciarlo, J. M., Demory, M.-E., Giorgi, F., Jacob, D., Jones, R. G., Keuler, K., Kjellström, E., Lenderink, G., Levavasseur, G., Nikulin, G., Sillmann, J., Solidoro, C., Sørland, S. L., Steger, C., Teichmann, C., Warrach-Sagi, K., and Wulfmeyer, V.: Evaluation of the Large EURO-CORDEX Regional Climate Model Ensemble, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2019JD032344, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD032344, 2021. a
Wood, A. W., Leung, L. R., Sridhar, V., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Hydrologic Implications of Dynamical and Statistical Approaches to Downscaling Climate Model Outputs, Climatic Change, 62, 189–216, https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000013685.99609.9e, 2004. a
Worku, G., Teferi, E., Bantider, A., and Dile, Y. T.: Statistical bias correction of regional climate model simulations for climate change projection in the Jemma sub-basin, upper Blue Nile Basin of Ethiopia, Theor. Appl. Climatol., 139, 1569–1588, 2020. a
Zha, Q., Reyniers, N., Addor, N., Osborn, T., He, Y., and Forstenhäusler, N.: UKCP18 RCM precipitation and temperature bias corrected using non-parametric quantile mapping method, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8223024, 2023. a, b
Zhang, H., Chapman, S., Trancoso, R., Toombs, N., and Syktus, J.: Assessing the impact of bias correction approaches on climate extremes and the climate change signal, Meteorol. Appl., 31, e2204, https://doi.org/10.1002/met.2204, 2024. a
Short summary
We present bias-corrected UK Climate Projections 2018 (UKCP18) regional datasets for temperature, precipitation, and potential evapotranspiration (1981–2080). All 12 members of the 12 km ensemble were corrected using quantile mapping and a change-preserving variant. Both methods effectively reduce biases in multiple statistics while maintaining projected climatic changes. We provide guidance on using the bias-corrected datasets for climate change impact assessment.
We present bias-corrected UK Climate Projections 2018 (UKCP18) regional datasets for...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint