scholarly journals Are we using the right fuel to drive hydrological models? A climate impact study in the Upper Blue Nile

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 2163-2185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Liersch ◽  
Julia Tecklenburg ◽  
Henning Rust ◽  
Andreas Dobler ◽  
Madlen Fischer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Model Performance ◽  
Climate Impact ◽  
Hydrological Models ◽  
Blue Nile ◽  
Projected Change ◽  
Model Ensembles

Abstract. Climate simulations are the fuel to drive hydrological models that are used to assess the impacts of climate change and variability on hydrological parameters, such as river discharges, soil moisture, and evapotranspiration. Unlike with cars, where we know which fuel the engine requires, we never know in advance what unexpected side effects might be caused by the fuel we feed our models with. Sometimes we increase the fuel's octane number (bias correction) to achieve better performance and find out that the model behaves differently but not always as was expected or desired. This study investigates the impacts of projected climate change on the hydrology of the Upper Blue Nile catchment using two model ensembles consisting of five global CMIP5 Earth system models and 10 regional climate models (CORDEX Africa). WATCH forcing data were used to calibrate an eco-hydrological model and to bias-correct both model ensembles using slightly differing approaches. On the one hand it was found that the bias correction methods considerably improved the performance of average rainfall characteristics in the reference period (1970–1999) in most of the cases. This also holds true for non-extreme discharge conditions between Q20 and Q80. On the other hand, bias-corrected simulations tend to overemphasize magnitudes of projected change signals and extremes. A general weakness of both uncorrected and bias-corrected simulations is the rather poor representation of high and low flows and their extremes, which were often deteriorated by bias correction. This inaccuracy is a crucial deficiency for regional impact studies dealing with water management issues and it is therefore important to analyse model performance and characteristics and the effect of bias correction, and eventually to exclude some climate models from the ensemble. However, the multi-model means of all ensembles project increasing average annual discharges in the Upper Blue Nile catchment and a shift in seasonal patterns, with decreasing discharges in June and July and increasing discharges from August to November.

scholarly journals Are we using the right fuel to drive hydrological models? A climate impact study in the Upper Blue Nile

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Liersch ◽  
Julia Tecklenburg ◽  
Henning Rust ◽  
Andreas Dobler ◽  
Madlen Fischer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Model Performance ◽  
Climate Impact ◽  
Hydrological Models ◽  
Blue Nile ◽  
Projected Change ◽  
Model Ensembles

Abstract. Climate simulations are the fuel to drive hydrological models that are used to assess the impacts of climate change and variability on hydrological parameters, such as river discharges, soil moisture, and evapotranspiration. Unlike with cars, where we know which fuel the engine requires, we never know in advance what unexpected side-effects might be caused by the fuel we feed our models with. Sometimes we increase the fuel's octane number (bias-correction) to achieve better performance and find out that the model behaves differently but not always as was expected or desired. This study investigates the impacts of projected climate change on the hydrology of the Upper Blue Nile catchment using two model ensembles consisting of five global CMIP5 Earth System Models and ten Regional Climate Models (CORDEX Africa). WATCH forcing data were used to calibrate an eco-hydrological model and to bias-correct both model ensembles using slightly differing approaches. On the one hand it was found that the bias-correction methods considerably improved the performance of average rainfall characteristics in the reference period (1970–1999) in most of the cases. This also holds true for non-extreme discharge conditions between Q20 and Q80. On the other hand, bias-corrected simulations tend to overemphasise magnitudes of projected change signals and extremes. A general weakness of both uncorrected and bias-corrected simulations is the rather poor representation of high and low flows and their extremes, which were often deteriorated by bias-correction. This inaccuracy is a crucial deficiency for regional impact studies dealing with water management issues and it is therefore important to analyse model performance and characteristics, the effect of bias-correction, and eventually to exclude some climate models from the ensemble. However, the multi-model means of all ensembles project increasing average annual discharges in the Upper Blue Nile catchment and a shift in seasonal patterns, with decreasing discharges in June and July and increasing discharges from August to November.

scholarly journals Impact of climate change on water availability in the Oueme catchment at the outlet of the Save's bridge (Benin, West Africa)

2021 ◽  
Vol 384 ◽  
pp. 255-260
Author(s):  
Amedée Chabi ◽  
Esdras Babadjidé Josué Zandagba ◽  
Ezekiel Obada ◽  
Eliezer Iboukoun Biao ◽  
Eric Adéchina Alamou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Water Availability ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Model Performance ◽  
Hydrological Models ◽  
Impact Of Climate Change ◽  
The Impact

Abstract. One of the major threats to water resources today remains climate change. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of climate change on water availability in Oueme catchment at Savè. Precipitation provided by three regional climate models (RCMs) was analyzed. Bias in these data was first corrected using the Empirical Quantile Mapping (EQM) method be for etheir use as input to hydrological models. To achieve the objective, six hydrological models were used (AWBM, ModHyPMA, HBV, GR4J, SimHyd and Hymod). In projection, the results showed that the AWBM model appears to be the best. The multi-model approach further improves model performance, with the best obtained with combinations of the models AWBM-ModHyPMA-HBV. The AWBM model showed a fairly good capability for simulating flows in the basin with only HIRHAM5 climate model data as input. Therefore, the simulation with the HIRHAM5 data as inputs to the five (05) hydrological models, showed flows that vary at the horizons (2025, 2055 and 2085) under the scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). Indeed, this variation is largely due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

scholarly journals On the need for bias correction in regional climate scenarios to assess climate change impacts on river runoff

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 1189-1204 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. Muerth ◽  
B. Gauvin St-Denis ◽  
S. Ricard ◽  
J. A. Velázquez ◽  
J. Schmid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
River Runoff ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Regional Climate Models ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
Hydrological Models

Abstract. In climate change impact research, the assessment of future river runoff as well as the catchment-scale water balance is impeded by different sources of modeling uncertainty. Some research has already been done in order to quantify the uncertainty of climate projections originating from the climate models and the downscaling techniques, as well as from the internal variability evaluated from climate model member ensembles. Yet, the use of hydrological models adds another layer of uncertainty. Within the QBic3 project (Québec–Bavarian International Collaboration on Climate Change), the relative contributions to the overall uncertainty from the whole model chain (from global climate models to water management models) are investigated using an ensemble of multiple climate and hydrological models. Although there are many options to downscale global climate projections to the regional scale, recent impact studies tend to use regional climate models (RCMs). One reason for that is that the physical coherence between atmospheric and land-surface variables is preserved. The coherence between temperature and precipitation is of particular interest in hydrology. However, the regional climate model outputs often are biased compared to the observed climatology of a given region. Therefore, biases in those outputs are often corrected to facilitate the reproduction of historic runoff conditions when used in hydrological models, even if those corrections alter the relationship between temperature and precipitation. So, as bias correction may affect the consistency between RCM output variables, the use of correction techniques and even the use of (biased) climate model data itself is sometimes disputed among scientists. For these reasons, the effect of bias correction on simulated runoff regimes and the relative change in selected runoff indicators is explored. If it affects the conclusion of climate change analysis in hydrology, we should consider it as a source of uncertainty. If not, the application of bias correction methods is either unnecessary to obtain the change signal in hydro-climatic projections, or safe to use for the production of present and future river runoff scenarios as it does not alter the change signal. The results of the present paper highlight the analysis of daily runoff simulated with four different hydrological models in two natural-flow catchments, driven by different regional climate models for a reference and a future period. As expected, bias correction of climate model outputs is important for the reproduction of the runoff regime of the past, regardless of the hydrological model used. Then again, its impact on the relative change of flow indicators between reference and future periods is weak for most indicators, with the exception of the timing of the spring flood peak. Still, our results indicate that the impact of bias correction on runoff indicators increases with bias in the climate simulations.

scholarly journals On the need for bias correction in regional climate scenarios to assess climate change impacts on river runoff

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 10205-10243 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. Muerth ◽  
B. Gauvin St-Denis ◽  
S. Ricard ◽  
J. A. Velázquez ◽  
J. Schmid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
River Runoff ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Regional Climate Models ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
Hydrological Models

Abstract. In climate change impact research, the assessment of future river runoff as well as the catchment scale water balance is impeded by different sources of modeling uncertainty. Some research has already been done in order to quantify the uncertainty of climate projections originating from the climate models and the downscaling techniques as well as from the internal variability evaluated from climate model member ensembles. Yet, the use of hydrological models adds another layer of incertitude. Within the QBic3 project (Québec-Bavaria International Collaboration on Climate Change) the relative contributions to the overall uncertainty from the whole model chain (from global climate models to water management models) are investigated using an ensemble of multiple climate and hydrological models. Although there are many options to downscale global climate projections to the regional scale, recent impact studies tend to use Regional Climate Models (RCMs). One reason for that is that the physical coherence between atmospheric and land-surface variables is preserved. The coherence between temperature and precipitation is of particular interest in hydrology. However, the regional climate model outputs often are biased compared to the observed climatology of a given region. Therefore, biases in those outputs are often corrected to reproduce historic runoff conditions from hydrological models using them, even if those corrections alter the relationship between temperature and precipitation. So, as bias correction may affect the consistency between RCM output variables, the use of correction techniques and even the use of (biased) climate model data itself is sometimes disputed among scientists. For those reasons, the effect of bias correction on simulated runoff regimes and the relative change in selected runoff indicators is explored. If it affects the conclusion of climate change analysis in hydrology, we should consider it as a source of uncertainty. If not, the application of bias correction methods is either unnecessary in hydro-climatic projections, or safe to use as it does not alter the change signal of river runoff. The results of the present paper highlight the analysis of daily runoff simulated with four different hydrological models in two natural-flow catchments, driven by different regional climate models for a reference and a future period. As expected, bias correction of climate model outputs is important for the reproduction of the runoff regime of the past regardless of the hydrological model used. Then again, its impact on the relative change of flow indicators between reference and future period is weak for most indicators with the exception of the timing of the spring flood peak. Still, our results indicate that the impact of bias correction on runoff indicators increases with bias in the climate simulations.

scholarly journals Impact of climate change on hydrological conditions in a tropical West African catchment using an ensemble of climate simulations

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 2143-2161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yacouba Yira ◽  
Bernd Diekkrüger ◽  
Gero Steup ◽  
Aymar Yaovi Bossa
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Water Resources ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
West African ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
Impact Of Climate Change ◽  
Budget Analysis ◽  
High Uncertainty

Abstract. This study evaluates climate change impacts on water resources using an ensemble of six regional climate models (RCMs)–global climate models (GCMs) in the Dano catchment (Burkina Faso). The applied climate datasets were performed in the framework of the COordinated Regional climate Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX-Africa) project.After evaluation of the historical runs of the climate models' ensemble, a statistical bias correction (empirical quantile mapping) was applied to daily precipitation. Temperature and bias corrected precipitation data from the ensemble of RCMs–GCMs was then used as input for the Water flow and balance Simulation Model (WaSiM) to simulate water balance components.The mean hydrological and climate variables for two periods (1971–2000 and 2021–2050) were compared to assess the potential impact of climate change on water resources up to the middle of the 21st century under two greenhouse gas concentration scenarios, the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) 4.5 and 8.5. The results indicate (i) a clear signal of temperature increase of about 0.1 to 2.6 °C for all members of the RCM–GCM ensemble; (ii) high uncertainty about how the catchment precipitation will evolve over the period 2021–2050; (iii) the applied bias correction method only affected the magnitude of the climate change signal; (iv) individual climate models results lead to opposite discharge change signals; and (v) the results for the RCM–GCM ensemble are too uncertain to give any clear direction for future hydrological development. Therefore, potential increase and decrease in future discharge have to be considered in climate change adaptation strategies in the catchment. The results further underline on the one hand the need for a larger ensemble of projections to properly estimate the impacts of climate change on water resources in the catchment and on the other hand the high uncertainty associated with climate projections for the West African region. A water-energy budget analysis provides further insight into the behavior of the catchment.

scholarly journals Simulation performance of selected global and regional climate models for temperature and rainfall in some locations in India

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 407-418
Author(s):  
SHWETA PANJWANI ◽  
S. NARESH KUMAR ◽  
LAXMI AHUJA
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
India Meteorological Department ◽  
Regional Climate Models ◽  
Climate Data ◽  
Simulation Performance ◽  
Climate Change Assessment ◽  
Better Than

Global and regional climate models are reported to have inherent bias in simulating the observed climatology of a region. This bias of climate models is the major source of uncertainties in climate change impact assessments. Therefore, use of bias corrected simulated climate data is important. In this study, the bias corrected climate data for 30 years’ period (1976-2005) from selected common fourGCMs and RCMs for six Indian locations are compared with the respective observed data of India Meteorological Department. The analysis indicated that the RCMs performance is much better than GCMs after bias correction for minimum and maximum temperatures. Also, RCMs performance is better than GCMs in simulating extreme temperatures. However, the selected RCMs and GCMs are found to either over estimate or under estimate the rainfall despite bias correction and also overestimated the rainfall extremes for selected Indian locations. Based on the overall performance of four models for the six locations, it was found that the GFDL_ESM2M and NORESM1-M RCMs performed comparatively better than CSIRO and IPSL models. After bias correction, the RCMs could represent the observed climatology better than the GCMs. And these RCMs viz., GFDL_ESM2M and NORESM1-M can be usedindividually after bias correction in the climate change assessment studies for the selected regions.

scholarly journals An ensemble approach to assess hydrological models' contribution to uncertainties in the analysis of climate change impact on water resources

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 565-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Velázquez ◽  
J. Schmid ◽  
S. Ricard ◽  
M. J. Muerth ◽  
B. Gauvin St-Denis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Water Resources ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Hydrological Model ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Structural Complexity ◽  
Global Climate Models ◽  
Hydrological Models ◽  
The Impact

Abstract. Over the recent years, several research efforts investigated the impact of climate change on water resources for different regions of the world. The projection of future river flows is affected by different sources of uncertainty in the hydro-climatic modelling chain. One of the aims of the QBic3 project (Québec-Bavarian International Collaboration on Climate Change) is to assess the contribution to uncertainty of hydrological models by using an ensemble of hydrological models presenting a diversity of structural complexity (i.e., lumped, semi distributed and distributed models). The study investigates two humid, mid-latitude catchments with natural flow conditions; one located in Southern Québec (Canada) and one in Southern Bavaria (Germany). Daily flow is simulated with four different hydrological models, forced by outputs from regional climate models driven by global climate models over a reference (1971–2000) and a future (2041–2070) period. The results show that, for our hydrological model ensemble, the choice of model strongly affects the climate change response of selected hydrological indicators, especially those related to low flows. Indicators related to high flows seem less sensitive on the choice of the hydrological model.

scholarly journals Climate Change Impact Assessment for Aji Basin Using Statistical Downscaling and Bias Correction of Climate Model Outputs

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 670-678 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. S Vithlani ◽  
H. D Rank
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Climate Extremes ◽  
Global Climate Models ◽  
Climate Indices ◽  
Climate Projections

For the future projections Global climate models (GCMs) enable development of climate projections and relate greenhouse gas forcing to future potential climate states. When focusing it on smaller scales it exhibit some limitations to overcome this problem, regional climate models (RCMs) and other downscaling methods have been developed. To ensure statistics of the downscaled output matched the corresponding statistics of the observed data, bias correction was used. Quantify future changes of climate extremes were analyzed, based on these downscaled data from two RCMs grid points. Subset of indices and models, results of bias corrected model output and raw for the present day climate were compared with observation, which demonstrated that bias correction is important for RCM outputs. Bias correction directed agreements of extreme climate indices for future climate it does not correct for lag inverse autocorrelation and fraction of wet and dry days. But, it was observed that adjusting both the biases in the mean and variability, relatively simple non-linear correction, leads to better reproduction of observed extreme daily and multi-daily precipitation amounts. Due to climate change temperature and precipitation will increased day by day.

scholarly journals The representation of location by regional climate models in complex terrain

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 3011-3028 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Maraun ◽  
M. Widmann
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Bias Correction ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Climate Change Signal ◽  
Model Errors ◽  
Model Simulations ◽  
Local Grid ◽  
Climate Model Simulations

Abstract. To assess potential impacts of climate change for a specific location, one typically employs climate model simulations at the grid box corresponding to the same geographical location. But based on regional climate model simulations, we show that simulated climate might be systematically displaced compared to observations. In particular in the rain shadow of moutain ranges, a local grid box is therefore often not representative of observed climate: the simulated windward weather does not flow far enough across the mountains; local grid boxes experience the wrong airmasses and atmospheric circulation. In some cases, also the local climate change signal is deteriorated. Classical bias correction methods fail to correct these location errors. Often, however, a distant simulated time series is representative of the considered observed precipitation, such that a non-local bias correction is possible. These findings also clarify limitations of bias correcting global model errors, and of bias correction against station data.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document