Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-890
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-890
24 Feb 2026
 | 24 Feb 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).

climQMBC: A package with multiple bias correction methods of GCM climatic variables at daily, monthly and annual scale, developed in Python, R and MATLAB

Sebastian Aedo-Quililongo, Cristian Chadwick, Fernando González-Leiva, and Jorge Gironás

Abstract. Climate change projections are studied using General Circulation Models (GCMs). GCMs are models that simulate climate on a broad scale, hence they cannot be directly used in local impact studies, such as, for example, hydrological studies. GCMs must go through a process of downscaling, to adjust their results in terms of spatial scale and reduce their bias before being used at the local scale. Quantile Mapping is one of the most widely used approaches for bias correcting GCM climate outputs. However, in its conventional formulation QM assumes a time-invariant correction function, which potentially results in additional biases. This has motivated the development of trend-preserving variations, accounting for a non-stationary correction function and aiming to preserve the raw GCM signal. Unfortunately, choosing which variation to use is not straight-forward. We present the climQMBC package (https://github.com/saedoquililongo/climQMBC or https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18392900) as an easy-to-use tool to compare quantile mapping approaches. climQMBC is available in Python, R and MATLAB, and contains the classic QM method and four trend-preserving variations: Detrended Quantile Mapping (DQM), Quantile Delta Mapping (QDM), Unbiased Quantile Mapping (UQM) and Scaled Distribution Mapping (SDM). This package has a built-in summary report that allows comparing methods in terms of their capability of preserving raw GCM trends. A synthetic exercise showed that the most reliable methods are the UQM and DQM.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Sebastian Aedo-Quililongo, Cristian Chadwick, Fernando González-Leiva, and Jorge Gironás

Status: open (until 21 Apr 2026)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Sebastian Aedo-Quililongo, Cristian Chadwick, Fernando González-Leiva, and Jorge Gironás
Sebastian Aedo-Quililongo, Cristian Chadwick, Fernando González-Leiva, and Jorge Gironás

Viewed

Total article views: 99 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
59 35 5 99 4 3
  • HTML: 59
  • PDF: 35
  • XML: 5
  • Total: 99
  • BibTeX: 4
  • EndNote: 3
Views and downloads (calculated since 24 Feb 2026)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 24 Feb 2026)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 92 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 92 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 28 Feb 2026
Download
Short summary
Global and regional climate model outputs need to be bias corrected to assess climate change impacts at local scales. Although several bias correction methods exist, none of them is perfect and users must assess the trade-off of these methods. As there are no coding packages that allow an even comparison, we developed an easy-to-use package to compare among methods, allowing users to identify the most adequate for each situation and include this analysis in their workflow.
Share