IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

A cautionary note on automated statistical downscaling methods for climate change

Listed author(s):
  • Francisco Estrada


  • Víctor Guerrero
  • Carlos Gay-García
  • Benjamín Martínez-López

The urge for higher resolution climate change scenarios has been widely recognized, particularly for conducting impact assessment studies. Statistical downscaling methods have shown to be very convenient for this task, mainly because of their lower computational requirements in comparison with nested limited-area regional models or very high resolution Atmosphere–ocean General Circulation Models. Nevertheless, although some of the limitations of statistical downscaling methods are widely known and have been discussed in the literature, in this paper it is argued that the current approach for statistical downscaling does not guard against misspecified statistical models and that the occurrence of spurious results is likely if the assumptions of the underlying probabilistic model are not satisfied. In this case, the physics included in climate change scenarios obtained by general circulation models, could be replaced by spatial patterns and magnitudes produced by statistically inadequate models. Illustrative examples are provided for monthly temperature for a region encompassing Mexico and part of the United States. It is found that the assumptions of the probabilistic models do not hold for about 70 % of the gridpoints, parameter instability and temporal dependence being the most common problems. As our examples reveal, automated statistical downscaling “black-box” models are to be considered as highly prone to produce misleading results. It is shown that the Probabilistic Reduction approach can be incorporated as a complete and internally consistent framework for securing the statistical adequacy of the downscaling models and for guiding the respecification process, in a way that prevents the lack of empirical validity that affects current methods. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Springer in its journal Climatic Change.

Volume (Year): 120 (2013)
Issue (Month): 1 (September)
Pages: 263-276

in new window

Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:120:y:2013:i:1:p:263-276
DOI: 10.1007/s10584-013-0791-7
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Web:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Hansen, Bruce E., 2000. "Testing for structural change in conditional models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 93-115, July.
  2. Jarque, Carlos M. & Bera, Anil K., 1980. "Efficient tests for normality, homoscedasticity and serial independence of regression residuals," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 255-259.
  3. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
  4. Andrews, Donald W K & Ploberger, Werner, 1994. "Optimal Tests When a Nuisance Parameter Is Present Only under the Alternative," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1383-1414, November.
  5. Granger, C. W. J. & Newbold, P., 1974. "Spurious regressions in econometrics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 111-120, July.
  6. Spanos,Aris, 1986. "Statistical Foundations of Econometric Modelling," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521269124, December.
  7. Aris Spanos, 2006. "Revisiting the omitted variables argument: Substantive vs. statistical adequacy," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 179-218.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:120:y:2013:i:1:p:263-276. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)

or (Rebekah McClure)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.