Check for corresponding ensemble members when giving ensemble inputs to biasCorrection

[cicatrixx]

Hi,
I am just testing out this package to perform bias correction for multiple RCMs. It seems that it is important to make sure the order of rcms is the same when providing the historical and future RCM data ensembles. Looks like function doesn't check this and just assumes same order? In below code, I was not careful when setting the order of RCMs in when I used bindGrid. But biasCorrection doesn't give me any error. Or am I approaching this all wrong.

# obs  Station data containing VALUE (ECA-D) daily data for pr for DJF 1983-2002).
data(VALUE_Iberia_pr)
y <- VALUE_Iberia_pr

data("CMIP5_Iberia_pr", "CORDEX_Iberia_pr", "NCEP_Iberia_pr")  #RCM hist
obsgrid<-getGrid(y)
xens <- bindGrid(
    interpGrid(CORDEX_Iberia_pr, obsgrid), 
    interpGrid(CMIP5_Iberia_pr,obsgrid), 
    interpGrid(NCEP_Iberia_pr, obsgrid))

data( "CMIP5_Iberia_pr.rcp85", "CORDEX_Iberia_pr.rcp85") ## RCM fut
newdataens <- bindGrid(
  interpGrid(CMIP5_Iberia_pr,obsgrid), 
  interpGrid( CORDEX_Iberia_pr, obsgrid)   )

calmult <- biasCorrection(y = y, x = xens,
                      newdata = newdataens,
                      precipitation = TRUE,
                      method = "eqm",
                      extrapolation = "constant",
                      window = c(30, 15),
                      wet.threshold = 0.1)

[miturbide]

Hi @cicatrixx thank you very much for reporting.
That is right. It assumes the same order. We are working on the member consistency check at moment and will let you know once implemented.
We should have specified this in the documentation. I will fix this as soon as possible.

[cicatrixx]

Thanks @miturbide! An update in the documentation would be great while the feature is unavailable. While you are at it, adding a message stating # of members in x ensemble and newdata ensemble don't match would also be a good check to have. The current message only notes the # of ensembles in newdata.

…

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018, 5:38 PM miturbide ***@***.*** wrote: Hi @cicatrixx <https://github.com/cicatrixx> thank you very much for reporting. That is right. It assumes the same order. We are working on the member consistency check at moment and will let you know once implemented. We should have specified this in the documentation. I will fix this as soon as possible. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#21 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/Ak3jAVKbPjwK7kCYTg1qGAfKERwcMi9mks5u17PNgaJpZM4ZCXho> .