A Two-Stage Bias-Correction and Super-Resolution Framework for Post-Processing Climate Model Outputs
Abstract. General circulation models (GCMs) underpin climate change assessments, yet their coarse spatial resolution and systematic biases constrain their direct use in regional applications. Post-processing approaches such as bias correction and statistical downscaling are therefore widely applied, yet these steps are often implemented independently, leading to inconsistencies between corrected statistics and spatial structure. This study presents a reproducible two-stage framework that integrates Quantile Delta Mapping (QDM) for bias correction with a deep learning-based super-resolution method to improve the statistical fidelity and spatial detail of climate model outputs. The framework is evaluated using precipitation, runoff, and evapotranspiration from three Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) GCMs (Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM5), Hadley Centre Global Environment Model (HadGEM3‐GC31‐LL), and Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPI‐ESM1‐2‐HR)), over the Hadejia-Jama'are River Basin in northern Nigeria. We first demonstrate that raw model outputs exhibit substantial biases, with domain-averaged root mean square errors (RMSE) of 48.6–57.3 mm month⁻¹ for precipitation, 0.93–7.51 mm month⁻¹ for runoff, and 33.8–58.7 mm month⁻¹ for evapotranspiration. QDM substantially reduces systematic errors, lowering precipitation RMSE to 23.8–27.8 mm month⁻¹, runoff RMSE to 0.24–1.85 mm month⁻¹, and evapotranspiration RMSE to 3.7–4.3 mm month⁻¹, while preserving projected distributional changes, as confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov (D ≤ 0.072) and Wasserstein (≤ 11.86) metrics. In the second stage, a conditional Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) super-resolves the bias-corrected precipitation fields from ~250 km to 14 km (regridded to 1 km), outperforming bilinear and bicubic interpolation in terms of structural similarity and spatial coherence. The proposed QDM-GAN framework is fully documented and reproducible, with openly available code and data sources, and is intended as a modular post-processing tool that can support downstream modeling applications requiring bias-corrected, high-resolution climate inputs.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "A two-stage Bias-Correction and Super-Resolution Framework for Post-Processing Climate Model Outputs." While the topic is relevant and timely, particularly in the context of climate change and scarcity of data in West Africa (Nigeria), I commend the authors of the manuscript in its current form.
Overall, the manuscript is well-organized and effectively addresses the challenges in the reliability and confidence of bias correction for climate change data. However, further refinements are necessary before it can be considered for publication in the journal. The following comments should be considered to enhance the quality of the manuscript.
Introduction
- Under Introduction, rephrase lines 60-61 into a simple and clearer statement.
- You need to work on punctuation marks, particularly line 78.
- On line 78, remove "and region."
Data and Methods
- Recast the statement under line 110.
-Enrich the study area with more info, particularly on agro-climatological parameters, for readers to understand the nature of the catchment/area.
- You need to work on the punctuation mark on line 151.
— Line 166, the 2 references should be in parentheses.
- Line 167, remove "ssn" from the dataset
- Line 174: Maintain .... study conducted by Wada et al. (2023) and remove "(Wada et al., 2023):
- Line 186, define the parameters' acronyms immediately under the table.
- Different Equations 3 and 4 appear on lines 205, 206, 225, and 228. Resolve these anomalies.
- Recast lines 274-275
Results and Discussion
- Table 4 should include pre- and post-R2 values.
- For tables 2 to 5 and figures, ensure consistency in the presentation of the GCM models.
- The values of generator loss presented on line 331 should be compared to Figure 3 to resolve the anomalies.
- Check the grammar between lines 347 and 348, and lines 416 and 417.
- Check the spelling error in line 456 with respect to one of the authors' names.