A cautionary note on automated statistical downscaling methods for climate change
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
Volume (Year): 120 (2013)
Issue (Month): 1 (September)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/10584|
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.:
- White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-38, May.
- Donald W.K. Andrews & Werner Ploberger, 1992.
"Optimal Tests When a Nuisance Parameter Is Present Only Under the Alternative,"
Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers
1015, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- 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.
- Granger, C. W. J. & Newbold, P., 1974. "Spurious regressions in econometrics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 111-120, July.
- Spanos,Aris, 1986. "Statistical Foundations of Econometric Modelling," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521269124, June.
- 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.
- 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.
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.