scholarly journals Response of climate change impact on streamflow: the case of the Upper Awash sub-basin, Ethiopia

Author(s):  
Salih Duri Abdulahi ◽  
Brook Abate ◽  
Arus Edo Harka ◽  
Sead Burhan Husen

Abstract This paper discusses the response of climate change impact on future streamflow availability in Upper Awash River basin, Ethiopia. The change of climate was built using the CORDEX, RCM daily precipitation, maximum and minimum temperature under RCP4.5 and 8.5 scenarios. The climate model was examined in the historical period 1996–2015 for its ability of capturing observed precipitation and temperature. Bias correction was performed on RCM temperature and precipitation to minimize the uncertainties that may occur from climate model projection. After the successful calibration and validation of the HBV hydrological model, streamflow was simulated for the periods of 2021–2040 and 2041–2060 and compared to streamflow of the baseline period 1996–2015 to investigate the changes. The results suggested that overall, following the precipitation increment, streamflow is expected to increase under both RCPs. The average monthly changes of streamflow are expected to increase by 40.1 and 29.4% under RCP4.5 and 16.9 and 18.5% under RCP8.5 scenarios for 2021–2040 and 2041–2060, respectively. Annual streamflow would increase by 28.5 and 23.95% under RCP4.5 and 8.5 respectively. The results of this work can help and inform the water resources planner and designer to frame an appropriate plan and management for the effective use of water in the future.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mostafa Tarek ◽  
François Brissette ◽  
Richard Arsenault

<p><strong>Abstract. </strong></p><p>Climate change impact studies typically require a reference climatological dataset providing a baseline period to assess future changes.  The reference dataset is also used to perform bias correction of climate model outputs.  Various reliable precipitation datasets are now available over regions with a high-density network of weather stations such as over most parts of Europe and in the United States.  In many of the world’s regions, the low-density of observation stations (or lack thereof) renders gauge-based precipitation datasets highly uncertain.  Satellite, reanalysis and merged products can be used to overcome this limitation.   However, each dataset brings additional uncertainty to the reference climate. This study compares ten precipitation datasets over 1091 African catchments to evaluate dataset uncertainty contribution in climate change studies. The precipitation datasets include two gauged-only products (GPCC, CPC), four satellite products (TRMM, CHIRPS, PERSIANN-CDR and TAMSAT) corrected using ground-based observations, three reanalysis products (ERA5, ERA-I, and CFSR) and one merged product of gauge, satellite, and reanalysis (MSWEP).</p><p>Each of those datasets was used to assess changes in future streamflows. The climate change impact study used a top-down modelling chain using 10 CMIP5 GCMs under RCP8.5. Each climate projection was bias-corrected and fed to a lumped hydrological model to generate future streamflows over the 2071-2100 period. A variance decomposition was performed to compare GCM uncertainty and reference dataset uncertainty for 51 streamflow metrics over each catchment. Results show that dataset uncertainty is much larger than GCM uncertainty for most of the streamflow metrics and over most of Africa. A selection of the best performing reference datasets (credibility ensemble) significantly reduced the uncertainty attributed to datasets, but remained comparable to that of GCMs in most cases. Results show also relatively small differences between datasets over a reference period can propagate to generate large amounts of uncertainty in the future climate. </p>


Atmosphere ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pan ◽  
Xu ◽  
Xuan ◽  
Gu ◽  
Bai

Evapotranspiration (ET) is an important element in the water and energy cycle. Potential evapotranspiration (PET) is an important measurement of ET. Its accuracy has significant influence on agricultural water management, irrigation planning, and hydrological modelling. However, whether current PET models are applicable under climate change or not, is still a question. In this study, five frequently used PET models were chosen, including one combination model (the FAO Penman-Monteith model, FAO-PM), two temperature-based models (the Blaney-Criddle and the Hargreaves models) and two radiation-based models (the Makkink and the Priestley-Taylor models), to estimate their appropriateness in the historical and future periods under climate change impact on the Yarlung Zangbo river basin, China. Bias correction methods were not only applied to the temperature output of Global Climate Models (GCMs), but also for radiation, humidity, and wind speed. It was demonstrated that the results from the Blaney-Criddle and Makkink models provided better agreement with the PET obtained by the FAO-PM model in the historical period. In the future period, monthly PET estimated by all five models show positive trends. The changes of PET under RCP8.5 are much higher than under RCP2.6. The radiation-based models show better appropriateness than the temperature-based models in the future, as the root mean square error (RMSE) value of the former models is almost half of the latter models. The radiation-based models are recommended for use to estimate PET under climate change in the Yarlung Zangbo river basin.


2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 657-671 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mirko Knežević ◽  
Ljubomir Zivotić ◽  
Nataša Čereković ◽  
Ana Topalović ◽  
Nikola Koković ◽  
...  

Abstract The impact of climate change on potato cultivation in Montenegro was assessed. Three scenarios (A1B, A1Bs and A2) for 2001–2030, 2071–2100 and 2071–2100, respectively, were generated by a regional climate model and compared with the baseline period 1961–1990. The results indicated an increase of temperature during the summer season from 1.3 to 4.8 °C in the mountain region and from 1 to 3.4 °C in the coastal zone. The precipitation decreased between 5 and 50% depending on the scenario, region and season. The changes in temperature and precipitation influenced phenology, yield and water needs. The impact was more pronounced in the coastal areas than in the mountain regions. The growing season was shortened 13.6, 22.9 and 29.7 days for A1B, A1Bs and A2, respectively. The increase of irrigation requirement was 4.0, 19.5 and 7.3 mm for A1B, A1Bs and A2, respectively. For the baseline conditions, yield reduction under rainfed cultivation was lower than 30%. For A1B, A1Bs and A2 scenarios, yield reductions were 31.0 ± 8.2, 36.3 ± 11.6 and 34.1 ± 10.9%, respectively. Possible adaptation measures include shifting of production to the mountain (colder) areas and irrigation application. Rainfed cultivation remains a viable solution when the anticipation of sowing is adopted.


2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 12765-12795 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Teutschbein ◽  
J. Seibert

Abstract. In hydrological climate-change impact studies, Regional Climate Models (RCMs) are commonly used to transfer large-scale Global Climate Model (GCM) data to smaller scales and to provide more detailed regional information. However, there are often considerable biases in RCM simulations, which have led to the development of a number of bias correction approaches to provide more realistic climate simulations for impact studies. Bias correction procedures rely on the assumption that RCM biases do not change over time, because correction algorithms and their parameterizations are derived for current climate conditions and assumed to apply also for future climate conditions. This underlying assumption of bias stationarity is the main concern when using bias correction procedures. It is in principle not possible to test whether this assumption is actually fulfilled for future climate conditions. In this study, however, we demonstrate that it is possible to evaluate how well bias correction methods perform for conditions different from those used for calibration. For five Swedish catchments, several time series of RCM simulated precipitation and temperature were obtained from the ENSEMBLES data base and different commonly-used bias correction methods were applied. We then performed a differential split-sample test by dividing the data series into cold and warm respective dry and wet years. This enabled us to evaluate the performance of different bias correction procedures under systematically varying climate conditions. The differential split-sample test resulted in a large spread and a clear bias for some of the correction methods during validation years. More advanced correction methods such as distribution mapping performed relatively well even in the validation period, whereas simpler approaches resulted in the largest deviations and least reliable corrections for changed conditions. Therefore, we question the use of simple bias correction methods such as the widely used delta-change approach and linear scaling for RCM-based climate-change impact studies and recommend using higher-skill bias correction methods.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mostafa Tarek ◽  
François Brissette ◽  
Richard Arsenault

Abstract. Climate change impact studies require a reference climatological dataset providing a baseline period to assess future changes and post-process climate model biases. High-resolution gridded precipitation and temperature datasets interpolated from weather stations are available in regions of high-density networks of weather stations, as is the case in most parts of Europe and the United States. In many of the world’s regions, however, the low density of observational networks renders gauge-based datasets highly uncertain. Satellite, reanalysis and merged products dataset have been used to overcome this deficiency. However, it is not known how much uncertainty the choice of a reference dataset may bring to impact studies. To tackle this issue, this study compares nine precipitation and two temperature datasets over 1145 African catchments to evaluate the dataset uncertainty contribution to the results of climate change studies. These datasets all cover a common 30-year period needed to define the reference period climate. The precipitation datasets include two gauged-only products (GPCC, CPC Unified), two satellite products (CHIRPS and PERSIANN-CDR) corrected using ground-based observations, four reanalysis products (JRA55, NCEP-CFSR, ERA-I, and ERA5) and one gauged, satellite, and reanalysis merged product (MSWEP). The temperature datasets include one gauged-only (CPC Unified) product and one reanalysis (ERA5) product. All combinations of these precipitation and temperature datasets were used to assess changes in future streamflows. To assess dataset uncertainty against that of other sources of uncertainty, the climate change impact study used a top-down hydroclimatic modeling chain using 10 CMIP5 GCMs under RCP8.5 and two lumped hydrological models (HMETS and GR4J) to generate future streamflows over the 2071–2100 period. Variance decomposition was performed to compare how much the different uncertainty sources contribute to actual uncertainty. Results show that all precipitation and temperature datasets provide good streamflow simulations over the reference period, but 4 precipitation datasets outperformed the others for most catchments: they are, in order: MSWEP, CHIRPS, PERSIANN, and ERA5. For the present study, the 2-member ensemble of temperature datasets provided negligible levels of uncertainty. However, the ensemble of nine precipitation datasets provided uncertainty that was equal to or larger than that related to GCMs for most of the streamflow metrics and over most of the catchments. A selection of the best 4 performing reference datasets (credibility ensemble) significantly reduced the uncertainty attributed to precipitation for most metrics, but still remained the main source of uncertainty for some streamflow metrics. The choice of a reference dataset can therefore be critical to climate change impact studies as apparently small differences between datasets over a common reference period can propagate to generate large amounts of uncertainty in future climate streamflows.


2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. 3391-3404 ◽  
Author(s):  
U. Ehret ◽  
E. Zehe ◽  
V. Wulfmeyer ◽  
K. Warrach-Sagi ◽  
J. Liebert

Abstract. Despite considerable progress in recent years, output of both global and regional circulation models is still afflicted with biases to a degree that precludes its direct use, especially in climate change impact studies. This is well known, and to overcome this problem, bias correction (BC; i.e. the correction of model output towards observations in a post-processing step) has now become a standard procedure in climate change impact studies. In this paper we argue that BC is currently often used in an invalid way: it is added to the GCM/RCM model chain without sufficient proof that the consistency of the latter (i.e. the agreement between model dynamics/model output and our judgement) as well as the generality of its applicability increases. BC methods often impair the advantages of circulation models by altering spatiotemporal field consistency, relations among variables and by violating conservation principles. Currently used BC methods largely neglect feedback mechanisms, and it is unclear whether they are time-invariant under climate change conditions. Applying BC increases agreement of climate model output with observations in hindcasts and hence narrows the uncertainty range of simulations and predictions without, however, providing a satisfactory physical justification. This is in most cases not transparent to the end user. We argue that this hides rather than reduces uncertainty, which may lead to avoidable forejudging of end users and decision makers. We present here a brief overview of state-of-the-art bias correction methods, discuss the related assumptions and implications, draw conclusions on the validity of bias correction and propose ways to cope with biased output of circulation models in the short term and how to reduce the bias in the long term. The most promising strategy for improved future global and regional circulation model simulations is the increase in model resolution to the convection-permitting scale in combination with ensemble predictions based on sophisticated approaches for ensemble perturbation. With this article, we advocate communicating the entire uncertainty range associated with climate change predictions openly and hope to stimulate a lively discussion on bias correction among the atmospheric and hydrological community and end users of climate change impact studies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document