INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY

Int. J. Climatol. (2012)

Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/joc.3544

The Statistical DownScaling Model: insights from one decade

of application
R. L. Wilbya * and C. W. Dawsonb
aDepartment of Geography, Loughborough University, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK
b Department of Computer Science, Loughborough University, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK

ABSTRACT: The Statistical DownScaling Model (SDSM) is a freely available tool that produces high resolution climate
change scenarios. The first public version of the software was released in 2001 and since then there have been over 170
documented studies worldwide. This article recounts the underlining conceptual and technical evolution of SDSM, drawing
upon independent assessments of model capabilities. These studies show that SDSM yields reliable estimates of extreme
temperatures, seasonal precipitation totals, areal and inter-site precipitation behaviour. Frequency estimation of extreme
precipitation amounts in dry seasons is less reliable. A meta-analysis of SDSM outputs shows a preponderance of research
in Canada, China and the UK, whereas the United States and Australasia are under-represented. In line with the wider
downscaling community, the most favoured sector of analysis is water and flood risk management which accounts for nearly
half of all output; research in other sectors such as agriculture, built environment and human health is less prominent but
growing. Over 50% of the studies are concerned with production of climate scenarios, comparison or technical refinement
of downscaling methodologies. In contrast, there is relatively little evidence of application to adaptation planning and
climate risk management. We assert that further attention to physically meaningful quantities such as wind speeds, wave
heights, phenological and hazard metrics could improve uptake of downscaled products. Chronic uncertainty in boundary
forcing continues to undermine confidence in downscaled scenarios so these tools are best used for sensitivity testing and
adaptation options appraisal. Copyright  2012 Royal Meteorological Society

KEY WORDS climate change; statistical downscaling; risk assessment; software

Received 18 October 2011; Revised 14 June 2012; Accepted 17 June 2012

1. Introduction spatially and temporally). The Statistical DownScaling

Downscaling is a technique by which properties of the
free atmosphere are used to predict local meteorologi-
cal conditions. The large-scale information may originate
from systematic weather observations or from climate
model outputs. Either way, the concept of downscal-
ing is appealing because the added detail could inform
site-specific assessment and management of climate risk.
However, the extent to which the downscaling commu-
nity is delivering these practical outcomes is open to
debate (Wilby and Fowler, 2010).
One explanation for limited penetration in adapta-
tion planning is that many downscaling models are
restricted in their use to specialists and/or research insti-
tutions. Furthermore, dynamical downscaling models are
not widely implemented for all regions, and can incur
significant computational and technical demands at the
outset. On the other hand, public software such as the
Climate Wizard (http://www.climatewizard.org/)(Girvetz
et al., 2009), may be highly accessible, but extracts cli-
mate change scenarios that are relatively coarse (both
* Correspondence to: R. L. Wilby, Department of Geography, Lough-
borough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK.
E-mail: r.l.wilby@lboro.ac.uk
Model (SDSM) is intended to bridge the divide between
accessibility and sophistication. This freely available soft-
ware enables the production of climate change time series
at sites for which there are sufficient daily data for
model calibration, as well as archived General Circulation
Model (GCM) output to generate scenarios of the 21st
century. SDSM can also be used as a stochastic weather
generator or to infill gaps in meteorological data.
There were over 5100 registered downloads from
110 countries between the release of the first version
of SDSM in 2001 and June 2012. Approximately 25%
of the registrations originate from Africa, Asia, Cen-
tral and South America. However, it is recognized that
even the modest requirements of SDSM (i.e. location-
specific meteorological data or weather-dependent vari-
ables for model calibration, and daily GCM output for
future scenario generation) can deter some prospective
users, especially those in data sparse regions. Undoubt-
edly, interest in SDSM has been stimulated by cita-
tions from the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) (http://unfccc.int/adaptation/
nairobi work programme/knowledge resources and
publications/items/5487.php), the United Nations Devel-
opment Programme (Lu, 2006), and the Intergovernmen-
tal Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report

Copyright  2012 Royal Meteorological Society

 R. L. WILBY AND C. W. DAWSON

(a)

(b)

Figure 1. SDSM-user interfaces (a) version 2.1 (upper) and (b) version 4.2 (lower). This figure is available in colour online at
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joc

(AR4) (Christensen et al., 2007). Another important fac-
tor has been the web-delivery of the software and
downscaling predictor variables via the Canadian Cli-
mate Change Scenarios Network (CCCSN) portal (http://
www.cccsn.ec.gc.ca/?page=main&lang=en).
After a decade of research yielding over 170 publi-
cations, this article reflects on the contribution made by
SDSM. The associated literature provides a sample of the
themes explored by downscaling researchers. The next
section explains the original concept and evolution of
SDSM. This is followed by a full description of the sci-
entific algorithm. Section 4 presents a meta-analysis of
the SDSM publication inventory and draws out the pre-
ferred regions, sectors and topics of interest. Section 5
discusses the extent to which SDSM (and downscaling in
general) has contributed to development and adaptation
planning. We also consider a few options for improving
access to climate risk information in some of the most
vulnerable and data sparse regions of the world. Finally,
we conclude with an appraisal of future opportunities,
including emergent research themes, and outline plans
for further software development.
2. SDSM concept and evolution
SDSM began life in summer 2000 as a crudely inter-
faced Visual Basic programme designed to teach five
elemental steps in statistical downscaling: (1) selection
of predictor variables, (2) calibration of the model
(using observed predictors), (3) validation of the model,
(4) generation of future scenarios (using climate model
predictors), and (5) analysis of outputs (using a range
of climate diagnostics). Users were led through these
sequential tasks via a master screen (Figure 1, upper
panel), a feature that is retained in the present ver-
sion (Figure 1, lower panel and Figure 2). A proto-
type SDSM was beta-tested at a Canadian Climate
Impact Scenarios Workshop on Methods and Techniques

Copyright  2012 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. (2012)

 SDSM – ONE DECADE ON

SDSM screen Tasks performed Data requirements

1. Quality control Checking for missing data and outliers Daily predictands

2. Transform data Lagging, normalisation, transformation Daily predictands

3. Screen variables Exploring predictor-predictand relations Re-analysis predictors

4. Calibrate model Deriving statistical transfer functions Predictors & predictands

5. Weather generator Synthesizing observed daily weather Re-analysis predictors

6. Scenario generator Generating climate change scenarios GCM predictors

7. Summary statistics Describing statistical properties (tabular) Any daily time series

8. Compare results Graphing summary statistics (monthly) SDSM output &predictand

9. Frequency analysis Graphing and tabling extreme values Any daily time series

10. Time series Graphing daily and seasonal diagnostics Any daily time series

Figure 2. The main screens, tasks performed and data requirements of SDSM.

for Constructing Regional Climate Scenarios at the Table I. Candidate predictor variables used by SDSM.
University of Laval, Quebec City, in November 2000.
After incorporating feedback from the workshop, SDSM Predictor Description
Version 2 was completed in September 2001, and dis-
TEMP Mean temperature at 2 m
tributed on request. Meanwhile, SDSM compliant sets
MSLP Mean sea level pressure
of predictor variables were processed by CICS for H850 850 hPa geopotential height
every land grid-cell in the HadCM3 and CGCM1 cli- H500 500 hPa geopotential height
mate models and made available through a web-site USUR Near surface westerly wind
(http://www.cics.uvic.ca/scenarios/index.cgi?Scenarios) U850 Westerly wind at 850 hPa
[now superseded by the CCCSN portal (http://www.cccsn. U500 Westerly wind at 500 hPa
ec.gc.ca/?page=main&lang=en)]. The standard suite of VSUR Near surface southerly wind
SDSM predictor variables is listed in Table I. V850 Southerly wind at 850 hPa
The software and data release were followed by V500 Southerly wind at 500 hPa
journal articles describing SDSM functions (Wilby et al., FSUR Near surface wind strength
F850 Wind strength at 850 hPa
2002) and extension to multi-site applications (Wilby
F500 Wind strength at 500 hPa
et al., 2003). The first user studies began to appear in ZSUR Near surface vorticity
conference proceedings and technical reports (LCCP, Z850 Vorticity at 850 hPa
2002; Cohen and Neale, 2003; Goldstein and Milton, Z500 Vorticity at 500 hPa
2003; Goodess et al., 2003). The first PhD employing DSUR Near surface divergence
SDSM was awarded in the year 2003 (Guangul, 2003). D850 Divergence at 850 hPa
Version 3 was released in May 2004 via the present D500 Divergence at 500 hPa
registration web-site (http://www.sdsm.org.uk/). This ver- QSUR Near surface-specific humidity
sion was more compatible with MS Windows and Q850 Specific humidity at 850 hPa
included a revised screen format whilst retaining the Q500 Specific humidity at 500 hPa
sequential tasking of earlier editions (Figure 2). New RSUR Near surface relative humidity
R850 Relative humidity at 850 hPa
features included quality control procedures, data trans-
R500 Relative humidity at 500 hPa
formations, more flexible graphing and an expanded
suite of diagnostic tests. This enables the interrogation
of climate data for trends, distributions, and covariance
regardless of whether any downscaling is performed. The peer-reviewed article referring to SDSM found that a
initial set of GCMs was also expanded for the UK to simpler and more parsimonious genetic programming
facilitate construction and characterization of uncertainty approach performed better at downscaling extreme tem-
in regional climate change scenarios for the water indus- peratures, at least for the Chute-du-Diable weather station
try (Prudhomme and Davies, 2005; Prudhomme et al., in NE Canada (Coulibaly, 2004). The article also estab-
2005; Vidal and Wade, 2008). The first independent, lished the principle that SDSM could provide a worthy

Copyright  2012 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. (2012)

 R. L. WILBY AND C. W. DAWSON
benchmark against which to compare other downscaling
methods.
Version 4 was released in April 2007 with addi-
tional features for extreme value, time-series analysis and
simulation (e.g. Generalized Extreme Value analysis, a
re-sampling algorithm for downscaling using past ana-
logues for future climate, auto-regressive analysis and
modelling, a raft of new summary statistics, and diag-
nostics based on STARDEX indices (Haylock et al.,
2006)). These upgrades were required by the Environ-
ment Agency to enable downscaling of tidal surges in
the Thames Estuary (Wilby, 2008a). In the same year,
an automated statistical downscaling model was pub-
lished by Hessami et al. (2008) – a clone of SDSM with
automatic predictor selection methods based on back-
ward stepwise regression and partial correlation analysis.
Subsequent work on SDSM (original) has focussed on
error-trapping and education. To date, SDSM training
workshops have been held in: Quebec (2000), Victo-
ria (2003), Boulder (2004), Casablanca (2007), Toronto
(2010), Xi’an (2010), Loughborough (2011) and Dhaka
(2011).
As noted before, there are other public domain down-
scaling tools besides SDSM – all intended to make
climate model products more accessible and relevant
to decision-makers. For example, MAGICC-SCENGEN
constructs geographically explicit climate change projec-
tions based on user-specific ensembles of climate model
output from the CMIP3/AR4 archive (http://www.cgd.
ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/). LARS-WG is a widely
used weather generator that produces daily, site-specific
climate scenarios consistent with changes in climate
model output (http://www.rothamsted.bbsrc.ac.uk/mas-
models/larswg.php). The Climate Systems Analysis
Group at the University of Cape Town has a data por-
tal that provides monthly summary statistics downscaled
to individual meteorological stations in Africa and Asia,
based on eight climate models (http://data.csag.uct.ac.
za/). The UNFCCC compendium on methods and tools
to evaluate impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to
climate change provides succinct descriptions of the
strengths and weaknesses of all these models and more
(http://unfccc.int/adaptation/nairobi workprogramme/
knowledge resources and publications/items/5457.php).
Faced with a potentially bewildering array it is essen-
tial that prospective users select the most appropriate
tool(s) for the task in hand. Accordingly, Wilby et al.
(2009) provide a checklist of nine sources of climate risk
information with their respective advantages and disad-
vantages.
3. SDSM algorithm
The theoretical origins of SDSM lie in a series of papers
in the 1990s and early 2000s. At this point, the downscal-
ing software was only available in Fortran 90 code and
model testing was being performed using meteorological
data from the UK, United States, and Japan. These early
Copyright  2012 Royal Meteorological Society
studies explored statistical relationships between indices
of atmospheric circulation and local meteorology (Wilby
1994, 1995, 1997, 1998a, 1998b). For example, Conway
et al. (1996) showed that daily precipitation across the
UK could be downscaled from airflow strength, direction
and vorticity indices that were objectively defined from
pressure patterns in the vicinity of the target region. Sub-
sequent work used these nonlinear, transfer functions to
generate scenarios for climate change impact assessments
in hydrology (Wilby et al., 1998a; Wilby et al., 1999), or
to compare performance metrics with other downscaling
techniques including dynamical methods (Wilby et al.,
1998b; Hay et al., 2000; Wilby et al., 2000).
3.1. Single site version
The SDSM algorithm is best described as a condi-
tional weather generator because atmospheric circula-
tion indices and regional moisture variables (Table I) are
used to estimate time-varying parameters describing daily
weather at individual sites (e.g. precipitation occurrence
or maximum temperatures). The downscaled process is
either unconditional (as with wet-day occurrence or air
temperature), or is conditional on an event (as with rain-
fall amounts).
For wet-day occurrence Wi there is a direct linear
dependency on n predictor variables Xij on day i:


n
Wi = α0 + αj Xij (1)
j =1
under the constraint 0 ≤ Wi ≤ 1. Precipitation occurs
when the uniform random number r ≤ Wi . The thresh-
old (mm) for a wet-day may vary between locations,
depending on the definition of trace rainfalls or preci-
sion of measurement. When calibrating the model, it is
also important to confirm that daily rainfall totals have
not been bulked over multiple days, thereby understating
precipitation frequencies. Predictor variables Xij may be
concurrent and/or lagged to increase persistence of wet-
and dry-spells.
When a wet-day is returned, the precipitation total Pi
is downscaled using:


n
Pik = β0 + βj Xij + ei (2)
j =1
where k (typically 0.25) is used to transform daily wet-
day amounts to better match the normal distribution.
However, other transformations (such as logarithm or
inverse normal) may also be applied to Pi . Note that
the same predictor set is used to downscale Wi and Pi
and that all predictors vij are standardized with respect
to their climatological mean V j and standard deviation
σj :
vij − V j
Xij = (3)
σj
Int. J. Climatol. (2012)
 SDSM – ONE DECADE ON
For unconditional processes, such as temperature or
wind speeds, there is a direct linear relationship between
the predictand Ui and the chosen predictors Xij :


n
Ui = γ0 + γj Xij + ei (4)
j =1
The model error ei is assumed to follow a Gaussian dis-
tribution and is stochastically generated from normally
distributed random numbers and added on a daily basis
to the deterministic component. This white noise enables
closer fit of the variance of the observed and downscaled
distributions, but can degrade skill at replicating serial
autocorrelation implicit to daily predictor variables. The
stochastic process also enables the generation of ensem-
bles of time series to reflect model uncertainty.
All downscaling parameters (αj , βj , and γj ) are
obtained by least squares calibration of the local pre-
dictand(s) against regional predictor variables derived
from the National Center for Environmental Prediction
(NCEP) re-analysis (Kalnay et al., 1996) using data for
any period within 1961–2000. Predictands are down-
scaled separately so any covariance must be conveyed by
common predictor variables and/or correlation between
predictors. Model testing suggests that this is a reason-
able assumption (Wilby et al., 1998a).
In common with all downscaling methods, SDSM pre-
dictor–predictand relationships are assumed to be unaf-
fected by anthropogenic climate change in the calibration
period, and transferrable to future decades. In practice,
the parameters of all empirical and dynamical downscal-
ing models are observed to vary over decadal-time scales
(Wilby, 1997). Low-frequency variability due to large-
scale atmospheric changes can be addressed using mix-
tures of stochastic processes (Katz and Parlange, 1996;
Wilby, 1998b) but changes in land-surface feedbacks
are a major unknown affecting all downscaled scenarios
(Pielke and Wilby, 2012).
3.2. Extension to multiple sites
Although SDSM is unable to downscale simultaneously
to multiple sites, the basic model may be adapted for
this purpose (following Wilby et al., 2003). This involves
two steps. First, a ‘marker’ precipitation series based on
daily area averages from several sites (or a single key
site) is generated using predictors Xij . Second, the area
average is disaggregated to observed daily precipitation
totals recorded at the constituent sites. This is achieved
by resampling the multi-site amounts on the date with
observed area average closest to the downscaled area
average.
Since actual patterns of rainfall are being re-sampled
both the area average of the marker series and the spatial
covariance of the multi-site array are preserved (Wilby
et al., 2003; Harpham and Wilby, 2005). Area averages
are favoured over single site marker series because
there is less risk of employing a non-homogeneous or
non-representative record, and predictability is generally
Copyright  2012 Royal Meteorological Society
greater (because of larger signal-to-noise ratio). As with
other re-sampling methods, the maximum daily value
generated cannot exceed the maximum daily amount
in the observations. However, synthetic N-day totals
can exceed observed N-day totals if the atmospheric
conditioning produces a sequence previously unseen in
the training set.
3.3. Evaluation of SDSM
As will be discussed later, SDSM has been deployed
in many downscaling comparison studies hence there
is good understanding of the model capabilities and
limitations. Despite the simplicity of the algorithm,
SDSM performs favourably in independent evaluations
of extreme temperatures (Coulibaly et al., 2005; Liu
et al., 2008); the annual precipitation cycle, seasonal
and annual precipitation totals (Wetterhall et al., 2007a,
2007b); extreme areal average precipitation (Hashmi
et al., 2011a); and inter-site correlation of precipitation
amounts (Liu et al., 2011). Indices of rainfall occurrence
are generally more skillfully modelled than intensity,
particularly in winter (Haylock et al., 2006).
However, SDSM is known to under-estimate variance
in wet- and dry-spell lengths (Coulibaly et al., 2005; Liu
et al., 2011) as well as heat-wave persistence unless auto-
regressive terms or lagged predictors are applied (Wilby,
2008b). Frequency estimation of extreme precipitation
amounts, particularly in summer, is problematic for all
downscaling methods and SDSM is no exception (Hay-
lock et al., 2006; Chen et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2011).
Some studies suggest that alternative modelling tech-
niques such as genetic programming may outperform
SDSM over a range of diagnostics (Coulibaly, 2004;
Hashmi et al., 2011b). Other work has revealed the sen-
sitivity of SDSM scenarios to the source of downscaling
predictor variables used in model calibration (i.e. choice
of re-analysis product) (Koukidis and Berg, 2009), pre-
dictor suite and domain (Crawford et al., 2007; Mullan
et al., 2012).
Further testing of SDSM by the authors shows that
the credibility of the model depends on the amount and
quality of meteorological data available for calibration,
as well as the physical controls of the local meteorology.
This can be challenging in regions where there is high
seasonal variability due to monsoon rains, inter-play
between complex terrain and water bodies, or annual
totals dominated by a few extreme/local convective
events (Wilby, 2008c). These issues are exacerbated
if meteorological networks are sparse and/or decaying,
records are broken by civil unrest, or quality controls are
not consistently applied.
Long-term, homogeneous daily meteorological records
are particularly rare in the Middle East. Nonetheless,
if there are sufficient high quality data to calibrate
SDSM, there is scope for infilling and hindcasting
missing data using identified relationships between large-
scale predictor variables and local weather. For example,
Figure 3 shows observed and downscaled daily mean
Int. J. Climatol. (2012)
 R. L. WILBY AND C. W. DAWSON

(a) (b)
1000
Daily mean temperature (degC) 35
SDSM Observed 950

Growing Degree Days (GDD)

30
900
25
850
20
800
15 750
10 700
5 650
0 600
SDSM Observed
-5 550
01/94

02/94

03/94

04/94

05/94

06/94

07/94

08/94

09/94

10/94

11/94

12/94

01/95
500
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Figure 3. Observed and SDSM hindcast of daily mean temperatures at Kfardane, Lebanon (left panel) and winter growing degree days at Amman,
Jordan (right panel). Source: Wilby (2010a).

temperatures at Kfardane, Lebanon where records began

in 1994 and run to present. Using all available data for
the period 1994–2000 daily temperatures and derived
metrics (such as the winter growing degree days) may be
hindcast for periods that pre-date observations. Similarly,
days with missing data (as in May 1994) were estimated
using the same statistical model. Where multi-decadal
series are reconstructed it is also possible to estimate
historic trends. For example, the SDSM hindcast of
precipitation totals at Kfardane suggests a long-term
decline in annual rainfall (∼125 mm) over the period
1961–2000 (not shown). Figure 4. Annual count of ‘climate downscaling’ publications between
1993 and 2011 identified by the WoS (9 June 2012). Note that the count
combines all types of downscaling study – statistical and dynamical.
4. Meta-analysis of SDSM literature
Since the seminal downscaling research of Wigley et al. Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). By June 2012
(1990) and of von Storch et al. (1993) there have been the inventory comprised of 112 journal articles (65%),
over 1700 publications (∼1500 since 2002) on the sub- 23 technical reports (13%), 22 conference proceedings
ject but the annual volume of output is accelerating (13%), 13 theses (8%), and 2 book chapters (1%). The
(Figure 4). By 2011 more than 300 papers were being list is unlikely to be exhaustive since much down-
published each year by the downscaling community as scaling work is published in the grey literature. Pub-
a whole. Including the work of the authors, more than lications that are not in the English language are
170 SDSM outputs have been identified since the release known to be under-represented too, especially those in
of version 2 (i.e. ∼10% of the total volume). This sec- Chinese.
tion interrogates the SDSM bibliography for underlining
themes. Clearly, the findings represent only a sample 4.1. Regions of interest
of the total downscaling output but the survey provides Given the origins of the tool, it is not surprising that
insights to patterns of research over the last decade. the focus of early SDSM applications was in Europe and
Table II shows the percentage of SDSM publications North America. However, by the year 2012, the volume
by region, country, sector and topic for the top five of output from Asia equalled that of North America
categories in each field. The SDSM bibliography was (30%), and surpassed Europe (22%). The statistics are
compiled using three search engines: Google Scholar, now dominated by Canada (26%), the UK (13%), and

Table II. Percentage of output (n = 172) referring to SDSM by region, country, sector and topic for top five categories since
2002.

Rank Region % Country % Sector % Topic %

1 North America 30 Canada 26 Water 41 Impact 38

2 Asia 30 UK 13 Unspecified 33 Scenario 26
3 Europe 22 China 13 Flood 6 Comparison 20
4 Africa 9 Iran 6 Agriculture 5 Techniques 7
5 Central/South America 6 Ethiopia 4 Urban 5 Management 5
Others 3 Others 38 Others 10 Others 4

Publications were surveyed in June 2012 and are listed in full at: http://co-public.lboro.ac.uk/cocwd/SDSM/Bibliography.pdf.

Copyright  2012 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. (2012)

 SDSM – ONE DECADE ON
China (13%) which account for 52% of all the documents.
Other notable national contributions have been made
by Iran (6%), Ethiopia (4%), the United States (4%),
Ireland (3%), and South Korea (3%). Output from Africa
accounts for 9% of the total but includes Masters and PhD
theses suggesting that the tool is being used for training
and development in the region (mainly in Ethiopia);
a point that has been noted elsewhere (Ziervogel and
Zermoglio, 2009). The most under-represented continents
are Australasia (just 2% of all outputs), followed by
Central and South America (6% of outputs).
Overall, 39 countries are represented in the SDSM
bibliography, but apart from Canada, China, and the
UK uptake in other regions is at a relatively low
level. In particular, there are few studies in the United
States (4%) and rest of Europe (8%) – perhaps because
alternatives to SDSM are available in both regions.
For example, the Bias-Correction Spatial Disaggrega-
tion technique of Maurer et al. (2007) has been widely
used and cited in the United States. Furthermore, the
projections are specifically targeted at the hydrologi-
cal and ecological modelling communities (http://gdo-
dcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled cmip3 projections/). Likewise,
the EU ENSEMBLES portal provides web-access to high
resolution climate scenarios for Europe derived from
an ensemble of GCMs and downscaling methods [ana-
logue, weather typing, regression and neural networks
(http://www.ensembles-eu.org/)]. Furthermore, there are
over 50 studies worldwide based on the popular weather
generator LARS-WG (Barrow and Semenov, 1995).
The WoS survey of all downscaling research returns
lower proportions of output for the three leading nations
and a different rank order to the SDSM inventory: United
States (32%), Germany (12%), UK (12%), Canada (10%),
France (6%), Australia (6%), and China (5%). Again, this
suggests that the high concentration of SDSM research
in Canada, UK, and China is atypical of the wider
community, and more reflective of the origins of the tool.
For instance, the SDSM bibliography presently contains
no items for Germany or France.
4.2. Sectors of interest
Table II indicates that water (resource and flood risk
management) has been the most frequently visited sector
by users of SDSM and accounts for 47% of the output
(Scibek and Allen, 2006; Abdo et al., 2009; Futter et al.,
2009; Nyenje and Batelaan, 2009; Yimmer et al., 2009;
Combalicer et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2011). Other sectors
such as agriculture (5%) (Rezaie and Bannayan, 2012),
urban environment (5%) (Zhou et al., 2009), ecosystems
(2%) (Adimo et al., 2011), energy/hydropower (2%)
(Noreña et al., 2011), human health/air quality/thermal
comfort (2%) (Holloway et al., 2008), and tourism/skiing
(1%) (AGCI, 2006) are represented to a lesser degree.
Some studies address multiple sectors (LCCP, 2002;
Reeves, 2008; Aguilar et al., 2009) but a significant
fraction (33%) does not specify the sector, concentrating
instead on the technical development or testing of the
Copyright  2012 Royal Meteorological Society
tool, or production of climate scenarios for trend and
uncertainty analysis (e.g., Chu et al., 2010; Gachon and
Dibike, 2007; Souvignet et al., 2010; Tian et al., 2011).
According to the WoS, ∼39% of all downscaling stud-
ies are concerned with aspects of water, flood, or drought.
The corresponding figures for the other sectors mentioned
above are agriculture (11%), ecosystems/environment
(6%), urban/built environment (5%), energy (2%), human
health (1%), and tourism (<1%). Therefore, apart from
under-representation of agricultural studies (and possibly
ecosystems) – when allowing for inclusion of more grey
literature and less double counting – the SDSM sam-
ple broadly represents the wider community’s sectoral
emphases.
4.3. Topics of interest
The themes of interest to SDSM-users are harder to
classify. Nonetheless, five broad topics were identified:
regional climate change scenarios; climate change impact
and vulnerability assessment; managing or adapting to
climate risks; downscaling model evaluation; and tech-
nical refinements (Table II). About 42% of the studies
were concerned with climate change vulnerability and
impacts, of which two-thirds focused on the water sec-
tor (see above). Approximately 26% of studies reported
the production of downscaled climate scenarios without
extension to impact or vulnerability assessment (Chaleer-
aktrakoon and Punlun, 2010; Qiu and Jiang, 2010). A
further 20% undertook comparative work – running mul-
tiple downscaling techniques (sometimes with multiple
impact models) to characterize the uncertainty or relative
skill attached to different methods (Dibike and Coulibaly,
2005; Khan et al., 2006; Tryhorn and DeGaetano, 2011).
A few studies investigate the sensitivity of SDSM results
to model inputs and operation (Mullan et al., 2012); oth-
ers do not use SDSM itself but apply the online predic-
tor sets to alternative downscaling techniques (Chandler
et al., 2006).
As noted above, inter-comparison studies have im-
proved understanding of the capabilities of SDSM and
downscaling in general. However, continued focus on
these activities is becoming harder to justify given low-
levels of uptake of regional climate change scenarios
for adaptation and resource planning (Fowler and Wilby,
2007). This tendency is certainly reflected in the SDSM
outputs: only 5% of the studies approach downscal-
ing from an adaptation or risk management perspective.
For example, Coulibaly and Shi (2005), Karamouz et al.
(2011), and Nguyen et al. (2010) consider the conse-
quences of climate change for urban drainage design
and performance. Whitehead et al. (2006) and Karamouz
et al. (2010) evaluate the effectiveness of different con-
trol strategies for eutrophication under downscaled cli-
mate scenarios.
5. Discussion
Our meta-analysis of SDSM outputs and patterns of
activity across the wider research community supports
Int. J. Climatol. (2012)
 R. L. WILBY AND C. W. DAWSON
the view that downscaling has yet to reach beyond
academia to make significant in-roads to adaptation prac-
tice (Fowler and Wilby, 2007; Wilby and Fowler, 2010).
Nonetheless, there is rapid growth in downscaling output
and the bulk of this literature is focusing on develop-
ment of novel techniques, climate scenario uncertainty
analysis, model inter-comparison, and risk assessment.
Publication trends reveal an overwhelming interest in
water-sector impacts, followed to a lesser extent by agri-
culture. Downscaling for sectors such as human health
and the built environment has received relatively little
attention until recently but these are clearly emerging
topics (Doyon et al., 2008; Holloway et al., 2008; Wilby,
2008b; Wise, 2009; Zhou et al., 2009; Cueto et al., 2010;
Chung et al., 2011).
Sectors such as ecosystems/biodiversity and energy
have been largely overlooked by the downscaling com-
munity. As far as the authors are aware, there have
been only a handful of downscaling studies concerned
with potential climate impacts on transport (French
et al., 2010). Nonetheless, downscaling wind speeds and
extreme weather could be useful for assessing future
energy potential and risks to transport infrastructure and
operations (Sailor et al., 2008; Salameh et al., 2009; de
Lucena et al., 2010; Traveria, et al. 2010). Aside from
conventional meteorological variables (i.e. temperature,
rainfall, sunshine, and wind speed) and a few unconven-
tional parameters (such as urban heat island, air quality,
or tidal surge) there is little work on other local quantities.
However, downscaling could be applied to other metrics
that are not represented at the spatial scale of GCMs.
For example, growing degree days, plant phenology, and
flowering dates may be linked to regional air tempera-
tures (Maak and Von Storch, 1997; Avolio et al., 2011);
wave heights to regional wind climate (Wang et al., 2010;
Reeve et al., 2011); or landslides and slope stability to
antecedent/extreme rainfalls (Dehn and Burma, 1999;
Chiang and Chang, 2011). Greater attention to indices
that are relevant to hazard management could be one
way of increasing uptake of downscaled information for
present climate conditions.
The SDSM and wider statistical downscaling literature
are geographically biased towards North America and
Europe (Figure 5). Very little peer-reviewed research
exists for Pacific islands, Polar (Arctic and Antarctic)
regions and South America. It can be no coincidence
that these are amongst the most data scarce parts of
the world – a significant impediment to any statistical
downscaling technique. However, this obstacle could be
overcome in at least two ways. First, baseline weather
generator parameters can be estimated from geographic
indices such as longitude, distance from coast or elevation
(Figure 6). Preliminary testing at sites in Africa and the
Middle East suggests that this technique could be used to
hindcast and/or infill missing weather data. Furthermore,
the conditioned weather generator method also yields
plausible climate change scenarios even where there are
minimal (paper-based), local meteorological observations
(Wilby, 2009).
Copyright  2012 Royal Meteorological Society
Figure 5. Number of downscaling publications by region since 1993
identified by the WoS (9 June 2012). Pacific islands include Hawaii,
Philippines, and Japan.
Second, remotely sensed data such as the Tropical
Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) could bridge or
extend surface records, or provide the predictand (albeit
at grid-resolution) for downscaling model calibration.
The TRMM multi-satellite precipitation analysis pro-
vides 3 hourly, 0.25° × 0.25° latitude–longitude resolu-
tion data, in near real time since 1998, between latitudes
45° north and south (Huffman et al., 2007). For exam-
ple, Figure 7 compares observed (GPCC), TRMM and
downscaled daily rainfall totals for Khujand in Tajikistan
during a 3 year period. Daily rainfall totals at this site are
most strongly correlated with NCEP relative humidity at
850 hPa (R850).
Climate model uncertainty has become a major focus
for downscaling research: according to both Scopus and
WoS this topic accounts for over 20% of published output
since 1993 (and ∼25% of all SDSM outputs). Studies
typically quantify uncertainties arising from permutations
of emission scenario, GCM, downscaling technique,
and impacts model (Wilby and Harris, 2006; Dibike
et al., 2008; Prudhomme and Davies, 2009; Khan and
Coulibaly, 2010; Chen et al., 2011). The trend in down-
scaling research is towards more exhaustive analysis
of uncertainty (Harding et al., 2012), something which
presents SDSM-users with a dilemma since only a few
forcing scenarios are provided through the CCCSN por-
tal. One option is for users to process their own sets of
predictor variables for additional GCMs. However, this
runs counter to the authors’ view that downscaled scenar-
ios are more suited to sensitivity analysis and adaptation
options appraisal than to exhaustive uncertainty analysis
(based on imperfect boundary forcing).
End-to-end analyses typically show that GCMs are
the primary source of uncertainty and, although emis-
sions and downscaling uncertainty are second-order, their
relative magnitude depends on the time-horizon. Future
climate may also be investigated alongside other pres-
sures such as land use change (Quilbé et al., 2008).
However, statistical downscaling cannot capture regional
climate forcing involving land-surface moisture, energy
and aerosol feedbacks (Pielke et al., 2011; van der Ent
et al., 2010). Furthermore, the integrity of all downscaled
scenarios depends on the extent to which host GCM(s)
Int. J. Climatol. (2012)
 SDSM – ONE DECADE ON

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 6. Example relationships between weather generator parameters [the unconditional wet-day probability (PWET); fourth root of mean
wet-day amounts (R4MEAN)] and longitude for sites in Yemen based on data for the period 1971–2000 (upper panel). Comparison of observed
and simulated daily precipitation totals at Addahi, western coastal plain of Yemen based on weather generator parameters derived from site
elevation, latitude and longitude (lower panel). Source: Wilby (2009). This figure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joc

but it should affect the ways in which downscaling

Figure 7. Monthly rainfall totals for Khujand, Tajikistan estimated by
GPCC (gridded observations), TRMM (gridded satellite), and SDSM
(statistical downscaling model, ensemble member 20). Source: Wilby
(2010b). This figure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.
com/journal/joc
manifest realistic global features such as the El Niño,
monsoons and storm-tracks, ocean currents, and so forth.
Rigorous examination of some of these macro-scale pro-
cesses shows major shortcomings in the AR4 models
(Annamalai et al., 2007; Paeth et al., 2008; Liepert and
Previdi, 2012).
Given climate model biases and partial boundary forc-
ing (i.e. atmosphere only), statistical downscaling of
future scenarios adds spatial precision but of question-
able accuracy (Pielke and Wilby, 2012). Unfortunately,
this fundamental caveat is seldom attached to regional
impact assessments, whereas uncertainty due to choice
of GCM is widely acknowledged. This does not imply
that downscaled scenarios of the future are value-less,
models are used. Some are advocating ‘scenario neu-
tral’ approaches in which downscaling informs a plausi-
ble range of climates for sensitivity testing (Prudhomme
et al., 2010). Others are using downscaled scenarios to
model performance of alternative adaptation strategies
for water supply-demand (Lopez et al., 2009) or qual-
ity management (Whitehead et al., 2006). These studies
show how downscaling could evolve from a scenario-led,
uncertainty-laden framework to vulnerability-led modes
of application.
Finally, one recent, novel application of SDSM is wor-
thy of special mention. Jia et al. (2012) used SDSM
to downscale two sets of temperature and precipitation
series for the years 1961–2000 to assess the drivers of
increasing water stress in the Hai River basin, China.
Five explanatory factors were considered in the finger-
print-based attribution analysis: natural climate variabil-
ity, anthropogenic climate change, artificial water use,
land use change, and local human activity (encompassing
both artificial water use and land use change). The two
downscaled scenarios were derived from GCM output
with natural only forcing, and natural with greenhouse
gas forcing. The results showed that for this particular
basin, the greenhouse gas forcing may be discounted,
whereas local human activity accounts for 60% of the
observed changes in the water resources during the last
40 years of the 20th century.

Copyright  2012 Royal Meteorological Society Int. J. Climatol. (2012)

 R. L. WILBY AND C. W. DAWSON
6. Conclusions
The past decade has witnessed growing academic interest
in statistical downscaling as evidenced by the volume of
research output. At the beginning of the decade it was
sufficient to construct a model, refine methods, and test
performance against observations and other techniques.
Downscaled scenarios were then driving environmental
models to evaluate potential climate risks to society.
Latterly, multiple downscaled scenarios are being applied
to multiple impacts models, and the emphasis is shifting
to more exhaustive characterization of uncertainties. The
typical study has either a North American or European
water-sector focus. In comparison, data sparse regions in
Africa, Asia, and South America are under-represented in
the downscaling literature. By the close of the decade, it
is has become clear that statistical downscaling has raised
awareness of climate risks but relatively few studies
are directly informing adaptation planning – the raison
d’être.
Output by SDSM-users broadly mirrors these trends.
Thanks to many comparison studies the capabilities of the
model are now well understood. From a core of water-
related research in Canada, the UK (and now China),
the tool is gradually reaching other sectors and regions.
Emergent topics of interest include the built environment,
human health, and energy production. Meanwhile, inter-
est in ecosystems and agriculture continue at a modest
level. Likewise, there have been relatively few examples
of SDSM use for adaptation planning and, to date, all
have been water-related (urban drainage, flood risk, and
water quality management). Nonetheless, we have sug-
gested that SDSM could perform other functions such as
data-infilling or scenario-production for sensitivity testing
of adaptation options.
Several technical developments are planned for SDSM.
These include: online rather than local operation so the
software would be platform independent; incorporation
of optional nonlinear transfer functions such as Artificial
Neural Networks; and simplified extraction of ensemble
statistics. Research continues into ways of applying sta-
tistical downscaling techniques in data sparse regions.
New downscaling predictor sets will also need to be pro-
cessed once the Climate Model Intercomparison Project
5 (CMIP5) completes their model projections based on
the Representative Concentration Pathways.
Finally, it is recognized that scenario tools such as
SDSM have an important educational role. It is gratifying
to log the steady output of Masters and PhD theses
that have implemented the model (13 to date). Climate
diagnostics lie at the heart of the software, and the data-
handling functions compel users to think deeply about
the quality of their own meteorological data, as well as
the predictability of the regional climate (now and in the
future). An important aspect of this capacity development
is to discern when to apply SDSM and when to use other
tools. In particular, chronic uncertainty in GCM boundary
forcing undermines confidence in downscaled scenarios
so these tools are best used for sensitivity testing and
Copyright  2012 Royal Meteorological Society
adaptation options appraisal. It is hoped that this critique
provides good examples of the capabilities of SDSM,
and pointers to fruitful areas of research in the coming
decade.
Acknowledgements
Development of SDSM was supported by the Environ-
ment Agency of England and Wales, the Canadian Cli-
mate Impact Scenarios Group, and Environment Canada.
We also thank the user community and early adopters
who have so enthusiastically embraced the project, not
least Jeanna Goldstein who was the first registrant.
References
Abdo KS, Fiseha BM, Rientjes THM, Gieske ASM, Haile AT. 2009.
Assessment of climate change impacts on the hydrology of
Gilgel Abay catchment in Lake Tana basin, Ethiopia. Hydrological
Processes 23: 3661–3669.
Adimo OA, Bosco NJ, Leonard W. 2011. Net primary productivity
response to climate change in the Mount Kenya ecosystem. In
Experiences of Climate Change Adaptation in Africa, Chapter 14,
Filho WL (ed). Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany.
Aguilar MY, Pacheco TR, Tobar JM, Quiñónez JC. 2009. Vulnerabil-
ity and adaptation to climate change of rural inhabitants in the central
coastal plain of El Salvador. Climate Research 40: 187–198.
Annamalai H, Hamilton K, Sperber KR. 2007. The South Asian
summer monsoon and its relationship with ENSO in the IPCC AR4
simulations. Journal of Climate 20: 1071–1092.
Aspen Global Change Institute (AGCI). 2006. Climate Change and
Aspen: An Assessment of Impacts and Potential Responses, Appendix
B, p107–111. Aspen Global Change Institute: Colorado, 147.
Avolio E, Orlandi F, Bellecci C, Fornaciari M, Federico S. 2011.
Assessment of the impact of climate change on the olive flowering in
Calabria (southern Italy). Theoretical and Applied Climatology 107:
531–540.
Barrow EM, Semenov MA. 1995. Climate change scenarios with high
spatial and temporal resolution for agricultural applications. Forestry
68: 349–360.
Chaleeraktrakoon C, Punlun P. 2010. Statistical analysis and downscal-
ing for the minimum, average, and maximum daily temperatures of
the Chi and Mun River basins. Thammasat International Journal of
Science and Technology 15: 64–81.
Chandler RE, Isham VS, Wheater HS, Onof CJ, Leith N, Frost AJ,
Segond M-L. 2006. Spatial-temporal rainfall modelling with climate
change scenarios. R&D Technical Report FD2113/TR. Defra,
London.
Chen J, Brissette FP, Leconte R. 2011. Uncertainty of downscaling
method in quantifying the impact of climate change on hydrology.
Journal of Hydrology 401: 190–202.
Chen ST, Yu PS, Tang YH. 2010. Statistical downscaling of daily
precipitation using support vector machines and multivariate
analysis. Journal of Hydrology 385: 13–22.
Chiang S-H, Chang K-T. 2011. The potential impact of climate
change on typhoon-triggered landslides in Taiwan, 2010–2099.
Geomorphology 133: 143–151.
Christensen JH, Hewitson B, Busuioc A, Chen A, Gao X, Held I,
Jones R, Kolli RK, Kwon W-T, Laprise R, Magaña Rueda V,
Means L, Menéndez CG, Räisänen J, Rinke A, Sarr A, Whetton P.
2007. Regional climate projections. In Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Solomon S, Quin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M,
Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds). Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge.
Chu JT, Xia J, Xu CY, Singh VP. 2010. Statistical downscaling of
daily mean temperature, pan evaporation and precipitation for
climate change scenarios in Haihe, China. Theoretical and Applied
Climatology 99: 149–161.
Chung ES, Park K, Lee KS. 2011. The relative impacts of climate
change and urbanization on the hydrological response of a Korean
urban watershed. Hydrological Processes 25: 544–560.
Int. J. Climatol. (2012)
 SDSM – ONE DECADE ON
Cohen S, Neale T (eds). 2003. Expanding the Dialogue on Climate
Change and Water Management in the Okanagan Basin, British
Columbia. Environment: Canada.
Combalicer EA, Cruz RVO, Lee S, Im S. 2010. Assessing climate
change impacts on water balance in the Mount Makiling forest,
Philippines. Journal of Earth System Science 119: 265–283.
Conway D, Wilby RL, Jones PD. 1996. Precipitation and airflow
indices over the British Isles. Climate Research 7: 169–183.
Coulibaly P. 2004. Downscaling daily extreme temperatures with
genetic programming. Geophysical Research Letters 31: L16203.
Coulibaly P, Shi X. 2005. Identification of the Effect of Climate Change
on Future Design Standards of Drainage Infrastructure in Ontario.
Ministry of Transportation of Ontario: Canada.
Coulibaly P, Dibike YB, Anctil F. 2005. Downscaling precipitation
and temperature with temporal neural networks. Journal of
Hydrometeorology 6: 483–496.
Crawford T, Betts NL, Favis-Mortlock DT. 2007. GCM grid box
choice and predictor selection associated with statistical downscaling
of daily precipitation over Northern Ireland. Climate Research 34:
145–160.
Cueto ROG, Martinez AT, Ostos EJ. 2010. Heat waves and heat days
in an arid city in the northwest of Mexico: current trends and in
climate change scenarios. International Journal of Biometeorology
54: 335–345.
de Lucena AFP, Szklo AS, Schaeffer R, Dutra RM. 2010. The
vulnerability of wind power to climate change in Brazil. Renewable
Energy 35: 904–912.
Dehn M, Burma J. 1999. Modelling future landslide activity base on
general circulation models. Geomorphology 30: 175–187.
Dibike YB, Coulibaly P. 2005. Hydrologic impact of climate change
in the Saguenay watershed: comparison of downscaling methods and
hydrologic models. Journal of Hydrology 307: 145–163.
Dibike YB, Gachon P, St-Hilaire A, Ouarda TBMJ, Nguyen VTV.
2008. Uncertainty analysis of statistically downscaled temperature
and precipitation regimes in Northern Canada. Theoretical and
Applied Climatology 91: 149–170.
Doyon B, Bélanger D, Gosselin P. 2008. The potential impact of
climate change on annual and seasonal mortality for three cities in
Québec, Canada. International Journal of Health Geographics 7: 23.
Fowler HJ, Wilby RL. 2007. Editorial: Beyond the downscaling
comparison study. International Journal of Climatology 27:
1543–1545.
French HK, Eggestad HO, Ovstedal J, Jahren PE. 2010. Climate
conditions and consequences for de-icing operations as exemplified
by the situation on a motorway and airport at Gardemoen, Norway.
Hydrology Research 41: 269–281.
Futter MN, Helliwell RC, Hutchins M, Aherne J. 2009. Modelling
the effects of changing climate and nitrogen deposition on nitrate
dynamics in a Scottish mountain catchment. Hydrology Research
40: 153–166.
Gachon P, Dibike Y. 2007. Temperature change signals in northern
Canada: convergence of statistical downscaling results using two
driving GCMs. International Journal of Climatology 27: 1623–1641.
Girvetz EH, Zganjar C, Raber GT, Maurer EP, Kareiva P, Lawler JJ.
2009. Applied climate-change analysis: the climate wizard tool. Plos
One 4: e8320.
Goldstein J, Milton J. 2003. Regional climate scenarios set devel-
opment for hydrological impact studies. Proceedings of the 14th
Symposium on Global Change and Climate Variations, American
Meteorological Society, Long Beach, California.
Goodess C, Osborn T, Hulme M. 2003. The identification and
evaluation of suitable scenario development methods for the
estimation of future probabilities of extreme weather events. Tyndall
Centre for Climate Change Research, Technical Report 4.
Guangul SG. 2003. Modelling the effect of climate and land-
use changes on hydrological processes: An integrated GIS and
distributed modelling approach, PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit,
Brussels, Belgium.
Harding BL, Wood AW, Prairie JR. 2012. The implications of climate
change scenario selection for future streamflow projection in the
Upper Colorado River Basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
9: 847–894.
Harpham C, Wilby RL. 2005. Multi-site downscaling of heavy daily
precipitation occurrence and amounts. Journal of Hydrology 312:
235–255.
Copyright  2012 Royal Meteorological Society
Hashmi MZ, Shamseldin AY, Melville BW. 2011a. Comparison of
SDSM and LARS-WG for simulation and downscaling of extreme
precipitation events in a watershed. Stochastic Environmental
Research and Risk Assessment 25: 475–484.
Hashmi MZ, Shamseldin A, Melville BW. 2011b. Statistical downscal-
ing of watershed precipitation using Gene Expression Programming
(GEP). Environmental Modelling and Software 26: 1637–1646.
Hay LE, Wilby RL, Leavesley GH. 2000. A comparison of delta
change and downscaled GCM scenarios for three mountainous basins
in the United States. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association 36: 387–397.
Haylock MR, Cawley GC, Harpham C, Wilby RL, Goodess CM.
2006. Downscaling heavy precipitation over the UK: a comparison
of dynamical and statistical methods and their future scenarios.
International Journal of Climatology 26: 1397–1415.
Hessami M, Gachon P, Ouarda TBMJ, St-Hilaire A. 2008. Automated
regression-based statistical downscaling tool. Environmental Mod-
elling and Software 23: 813–834.
Holloway T, Spak SN, Barker D, Bretl M, Moberg C, Hayhoe K,
Van Dorn J, Wuebbles D. 2008. Change in ozone air pollution
over Chicago associated with global climate change. Journal of
Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 113: D22306.
Huffman GJ, Adler RF, Bolvin DT, Gu G, Nelkin EJ, Bowman KP,
Hong Y, Stocker EF, Wolff DB. 2007. The TRMM multi-satellite
precipitation analysis: Quasi-global, multi-year, combined-sensor
precipitation estimates at fine scale. Journal of Hydrometeorology
8: 38–55.
Jia Y, Ding X, Wang H, Zhou Z, Qiu Y, Niu C. 2012. Attribution of
water resources evolution in the highly water-stressed Hai River
Basin of China. Water Resources Research 48: W02513.
Kalnay E, Kanamitsu M, Kistler R, Collins W, Deaven D, Gandin L,
Iredell M, Saha S, White G, Woollen J, Zhu Y, Leetmaa A,
Reynolds R, Chelliah M, Ebisuzaki W, Higgins W, Janowiak D,
Mo KC, Ropelewski C, Wang J, Jenne R, Joseph D. 1996. The
NCEP/NCAR 40 year Reanalysis project. Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society 77: 437–471.
Karamouz M, Noori N, Moridi A, Ahmadi A. 2011. Evaluation of
floodplain variability considering impacts of climate change.
Hydrological Processes 25: 90–103.
Karamouz M, Taheriyoun M, Baghvand A, Tavakolifar H, Emami F.
2010. Optimization of watershed control strategies for reservoir
eutrophication management. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering 136: 847–861.
Katz RW, Parlange MB. 1996. Mixtures of stochastic processes:
application of statistical downscaling. Climate Research 7: 185–193.
Khan MS, Coulibaly P. 2010. Assessing hydrologic impact of climate
change with uncertainty estimates: Bayesian neural network
approach. Journal of Hydrometeorology 11: 482–495.
Khan MS, Coulibaly P, Dibike Y. 2006. Uncertainty analysis of
statistical downscaling methods. Journal of Hydrology 319:
357–382.
Koukidis EN, Berg AA. 2009. Sensitivity of the Statistical DownScal-
ing Model (SDSM) to reanalysis products. Atmosphere-Ocean 47:
1–18.
Liepert BG, Previdi M. 2012. Inter-model variability and biases of the
global water cycle in CMIP3 coupled climate models. Environmental
Research Letters 7: 014006, DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014006.
Liu XL, Coulibaly P, Evora N. 2008. Comparison of data-driven
methods for downscaling ensemble weather forecasts. Hydrology and
Earth System Sciences 12: 615–624.
Liu Z, Xu Z, Charles SP, Fu G, Liu L. 2011. Evaluation of two
statistical downscaling models for daily precipitation over an arid
basin in China. International Journal of Climatology 31: 2006–2020.
London Climate Change Partnership (LCCP). 2002. A climate change
impacts in London evaluation study. Final Technical Report, Entec
UK Ltd.
Lopez A, Fung F, New M, Watts G, Weston A, Wilby RL. 2009. From
climate model ensembles to climate change impacts: a case study of
water resource management in the South West of England. Water
Resources Research 45: W08419.
Lu X. 2006. Guidance on the Development of Climate Scenarios
within the Framework of National Communications from Parties not
Included in Annex I (NAI) to the United Nations Framework Con-
vention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). National Communications
Support Programme (NCSP), UNDP-UNEP-GEF.
Maak K, Von Storch H. 1997. Statistical downscaling of monthly mean
air temperature to the beginning of flowering of Galanthus nivalis L.
Int. J. Climatol. (2012)
 R. L. WILBY AND C. W. DAWSON
in Northern Germany. International Journal of Biometeorology 41:
5–12.
Maurer EP, Brekke L, Pruitt T, Duffy PB. 2007. Fine-resolution
climate projections enhance regional climate change impact studies.
EOS 88: 504.
Mullan D, Fealy R, Favis-Mortlock D. 2012. Developing site-specific
future temperature scenarios for Northern Ireland: addressing key
issues employing a statistical downscaling approach. International
Journal of Climatology DOI: 10.1002/joc.2414.
Nguyen VTV, Desramaut N, Nguyen TD. 2010. Optimal rainfall
temporal patterns for urban drainage design in the context of climate
change. Water Science and Technology 62: 1170–1176.
Noreña JEO, Garcia CG, Conde AC. 2011. A proposal for a
vulnerability index for hydroelectricity generation in the face of
potential climate change in Columbia. Atmosfera 24: 329–346.
Nyenje PM, Batelaan O. 2009. Estimating the effects of climate change
on groundwater recharge and baseflow in the Ssezibwa catchment,
Uganda. Hydrological Sciences Journal 54: 713–726.
Paeth H, Scholten A, Friederichs P, Hense A. 2008. Uncertainties
in climate change prediction: El-Nino-Southern Oscillation and
monsoons. Global and Planetary Change 60: 265–288.
Pielke RA Sr, Wilby RL. 2012. Regional climate downscaling – what’s
the point?. EOS 93: 52–53.
Pielke RA Sr, Pitman A, Niyogi D, Mahmood R, McAlpine C,
Hossain F, Goldewijk K, Nair U, Betts R, Fall S, Reichstein M,
Kabat P, de Noblet-Ducoudré N. 2011. Land use/land cover changes
and climate: Modeling analysis and observational evidence. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 2: 828–850.
Prudhomme C, Davies H. 2005. Comparison of different sources of
uncertainty in climate change impact studies in Great Britain.
Climatic and anthropogenic impacts on water resources variability.
UNESCO workshop, Montpellier, 22–24 November 2004.
Prudhomme C, Davies H. 2009. Assessing uncertainties in climate
change impact analyses on the river flow regimes in the UK. Part 2:
future climate. Climatic Change 93: 197–222.
Prudhomme C, Piper B, Osborn T, Davies H. 2005. Climate change
uncertainty in water resources planning. UKWIR Report 05/CL/04/4,
UK Water Industry Research.
Prudhomme C, Wilby RL, Crooks S, Kay AL, Reynard NS. 2010.
Scenario-neutral approach to climate change impact studies:
application to flood risk. Journal of Hydrology 390: 198–209.
Qiu B, Jiang J. 2010. Analysis of trends of future temperature in the
Bosten Lake Basin based on a statistical downscaling model. Journal
of Resources Ecology 1: 268–273.
Quilbé R, Rousseau AN, Moquet J-S, Savary S, Ricard S, Gar-
bouj MS. 2008. Hydrological responses of a watershed to historical
land use evolution and future land use scenarios under cli-
mate change conditions. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 12:
101–110.
Reeve DE, Chen Y, Pan S, Magar V, Simmonds DJ, Zacharioudaki A.
2011. An investigation of the impacts of climate change on wave
energy generation: the Wave Hub, Cornwall, Uk. Renewable Energy
36: 2404–2413.
Reeves I. 2008. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Saint John,
New Brunswick, Canada. Atlantic Coastal Action Plan Saint John:
Canada.
Rezaie EE, Bannayan M. 2012. Rainfed wheat yields under
climate change in northeastern Iran. Meteorological Applications
10.1002/met.268.
Sailor DJ, Smith M, Hart M. 2008. Climate change implications for
wind power resources in the Northwest United States. Renewable
Energy 33: 2393–2406.
Salameh T, Drobinski P, Vrac M, Naveau P. 2009. Statistical
downscaling of near-surface wind over complex terrain in southern
France. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 103: 253–265.
Scibek J, Allen DM. 2006. Modeled impacts of predicted climate
change on recharge and groundwater levels. Water Resources
Research 42: W11405.
Souvignet M, Gaese H, Ribbe L, Kretschmer N, Oyarzun R. 2010.
Statistical downscaling of precipitation and temperature in north-
central Chile: an assessment of possible climate change impacts in
an arid Andean watershed. Hydrological Sciences Journal 55: 41–57.
Tian P, Tian K, Li J. 2011. Statistical downscaling of future
temperature and precipitation in upstream of the Ganjiang Basin.
Journal of Basic Science and Engineering 19: 57–67.
Copyright  2012 Royal Meteorological Society
Traveria M, Escribano A, Palomo P. 2010. Statistical wind forecast for
Reus airport. Meteorological Applications 17: 485–495.
Tryhorn L, DeGaetano A. 2011. A comparison of techniques for
downscaling extreme precipitation over the Northeastern United
States. International Journal of Climatology 31: 1975–1989.
van der Ent RJ, Savenije HG, Schaefli B, Steele-Dunne SC. 2010.
Origin and fate of atmospheric moisture over continents. Water
Resources Research 46: W09525.
Vidal J-P, Wade SD. 2008. Multimodel projections of catchment-scale
precipitation regime. Journal of Hydrology 353: 143–158.
von Storch H, Zorita E, Cubasch U. 1993. Downscaling of global
climate change estimates to regional scales: An application to Iberian
rainfall in wintertime. Journal of Climate 6: 1161–1171.
Wang XL, Swail VR, Cox A. 2010. Dynamical versus statistical
downscaling methods for ocean wave heights. International Journal
of Climatology 30: 317–332.
Wetterhall F, Bárdossy A, Chen D, Halldin S, Xu C. 2007a. Daily
precipitation-downscaling techniques in three Chinese regions. Water
Resources Research 42: W11423, DOI: 10.1029/2005WR004573.
Wetterhall F, Halldin S, Xu CY. 2007b. Seasonality properties of four
statistical-downscaling methods in central Sweden. Theoretical and
Applied Climatology 87: 123–137.
Whitehead PG, Wilby RL, Butterfield D, Wade AJ. 2006. Impacts of
climate change on nitrogen in a lowland chalk stream: an appraisal
of adaptation strategies. Science of the Total Environment 365:
260–273.
Wigley TML, Jones PD, Briffa KR, Smith G. 1990. Obtaining subgrid
scale information from coarse-resolution general circulation model
output. Journal of Geohphysical Research 95: 1943–1953.
Wilby RL. 1994. Stochastic weather type simulation for regional
climate change impact assessment. Water Resources Research 30:
3395–3403.
Wilby RL. 1995. Simulation of precipitation by weather pattern and
frontal analysis. Journal of Hydrology 173: 91–109.
Wilby RL. 1997. Nonstationarity in daily precipitation series:
implications for GCM downscaling using atmospheric circulation
indices. International Journal of Climatology 17: 439–454.
Wilby RL. 1998a. Modelling low-frequency rainfall events using
weather pattern and frontal frequencies. Journal of Hydrology 213:
381–392.
Wilby RL. 1998b. Statistical downscaling of daily precipitation using
daily airflow and seasonal teleconnection indices. Climate Research
10: 163–178.
Wilby RL. 2008a. Downscaling future skew surge statistics at
Sheerness, Kent. Phase 3 studies – synthesis report. Thames Estuary
2100, Environment Agency, 27 pp.
Wilby RL. 2008b. Constructing climate change scenarios of urban
heat island intensity and air quality. Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design 35: 902–919.
Wilby RL. 2008c. Dealing with uncertainties of future climate: the
special challenge of semi-arid regions. Proceedings of the Water
Tribune, Expo Zaragoza, Spain.
Wilby RL. 2009. An evaluation of climate data and downscaling
options for Yemen. Report on behalf of the World Bank. 31 pp.
Wilby RL. 2010a. Climate change projections and downscaling for
Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Synthesis Report on behalf of the World
Bank. 39 pp.
Wilby RL. 2010b. Improving the climate resilience of Tajikistan’s
hydropower sector: Climate variability and change in Tajikistan.
Report on behalf of the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, London. 30 pp.
Wilby RL, Fowler HJ. 2010. Regional climate downscaling. In
Modelling the Impact of Climate Change on Water Resources.
Fung CF, Lopez A, New M (eds). Wiley-Blackwell Publishing:
Chichester.
Wilby RL, Harris I. 2006. A framework for assessing uncertainties
in climate change impacts: low flow scenarios for the River
Thames, UK. Water Resources Research 42: W02419, DOI:
10.1029/2005WR004065.
Wilby RL, Dawson CW, Barrow EM. 2002. SDSM – a decision
support tool for the assessment of regional climate change impacts.
Environmental and Modelling Software 17: 145–157.
Wilby RL, Hassan H, Hanaki K. 1998a. Statistical downscaling of
hydrometeorological variables using General Circulation Model
output. Journal of Hydrology 205: 1–19.
Int. J. Climatol. (2012)
 SDSM – ONE DECADE ON
Wilby RL, Wigley TML, Conway D, Jones PD, Hewitson BC, Main J,
Wilks DS. 1998b. Statistical downscaling of General Circulation
Model output: a comparison of methods. Water Resources Research
34: 2995–3008.
Wilby RL, Hay LE, Leavesley GH. 1999. A comparison of downscaled
and raw GCM output: implications for climate change scenarios
in the San Juan River Basin, Colorado. Journal of Hydrology 225:
67–91.
Wilby RL, Hay LE, Gutowski WJ, Arritt RW, Takle ES, Leaves-
ley GH, Clark M. 2000. Hydrological responses to dynamically and
statistically downscaled General Circulation Model output. Geophys-
ical Research Letters 27: 1199–1202.
Wilby RL, Tomlinson OJ, Dawson CW. 2003. Multi-site simulation
of precipitation by conditional resampling. Climate Research 23:
183–194.
Wilby RL, Troni J, Biot Y, Tedd L, Hewitson BC, Smith DG,
Sutton RT. 2009. A review of climate risk information for adaptation
Copyright  2012 Royal Meteorological Society
and development planning. International Journal of Climatology 29:
1193–1215.
Wise K. 2009. Climate-based sensitivity of air quality to climate change
scenarios for the southwestern United States. International Journal
of Climatology 29: 87–97.
Yimmer G, Jonoski A, Griensven AV. 2009. Hydrological response
of a catchment to climate change in the upper Beles river basin,
Upper Blue Nile, Ethiopia. Nile Basin Water Engineering Scientific
Magazine 2: 49–59.
Zhou F, Zhang A, Li R, Hoeve E. 2009. Spatio-temporal simulation
of permafrost geothermal response to climate change scenarios in
a building environment. Cold Regions Science and Technology 56:
141–151.
Ziervogel G, Zermoglio F. 2009. Climate change scenarios and the
development of adaptation strategies in Africa: challenges and
opportunities. Climate Research 40: 133–146.
Int. J. Climatol. (2012)