Timeline for How can I calculate the relative change in Precipitation using CMIP models without producing unrealistic results in Dry areas?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 15, 2021 at 8:56 | comment | added | Alex | Yes setting every value <0.1 to 0.1 doesn't seem right. I'd probably simply avoid calculating precipitation Deltas for those masked grid cells and set those grid cells to zero afterwards. | |
| Sep 13, 2021 at 12:50 | comment | added | matlabcat | Having looked at this further, it seems that using NA's will cause a problem of indetermination when calculating the relative changes for the Delta change. I wonder did they set every value below 0.1 to 0.1? That doesn't seem like a robust approach either..as you would be creating precipitation data where there was none before. | |
| Sep 13, 2021 at 11:00 | vote | accept | matlabcat | ||
| Sep 13, 2021 at 11:00 | comment | added | matlabcat | Thanks for your feedback. In relation to (1) we set a threshold of 0.1 mm month−1 both for current and future GCM values = they masked out all grid cells with less than 0.1 mm month−1 precipitation. That way they're avoiding dividing by very small numbers in what you correctly identified as dry areas. When you say they masked them out....Do you mean they are replaced with an 'NA' as opposed to any real number? | |
| S Sep 12, 2021 at 14:12 | review | First answers | |||
| Sep 12, 2021 at 20:58 | |||||
| S Sep 12, 2021 at 14:12 | history | answered | Alex | CC BY-SA 4.0 |