Search

A mass‐conserving method to downscale precipitation from global climate models (GCMs) using sub‐grid‐scale topography and modeled 700‐mb wind direction is presented. Runoff is simulated using a stand‐alone hydrological model, with this and several other methods as inputs, and compared to runoff simulated using historical observations over the western contiguous United States. Results suggest the mitigation of grid‐scale biases is more critical than downscaling for some regions with large wet biases (e.g., the Great Basin and Upper Colorado). In other regions (e.g., the Pacific Northwest) the new method produces more realistic sub‐grid‐scale variability in runoff compared to unadjusted GCM output and a simpler downscaling method. The presented method also brings the runoff centroid timing closer to that simulated with observations for all subregions examined. Plain Language Summary: Due to limitations in computing power which necessitates coarse spatial resolution, climate models do not include many details on mountains and their impact on precipitation. For this reason, it is difficult to estimate the impact of climate change on the availability of water for human consumption in places like the western United States, where mountain snowpack is an important source of water. This paper presents a way to adjust precipitation estimates from climate models by using some simple statistics about nearby mountains and valleys. The adjusted precipitation is then used in a hydrologic model to calculate the runoff that is simulated with different precipitation inputs. Results show that in most cases, the precipitation adjustment improves estimates of the resultant runoff relative to simulations with observed precipitation. The main exceptions are in very dry areas where the climate model produces far too much precipitation. With further work, the proposed adjustment may be integrated into the climate model itself to make it easier for those managing water resources (e.g., controlling reservoir levels) to use the model output to plan and adapt to climate change. Key Points: A mass‐conserving method for downscaling orographic precipitation improves modeled runoff from the CESM2Considering upwind topography further improves modeled runoff compared to simpler adjustmentsNot tuning to individual model grid points makes this method more generalizable than many existing statistical downscaling methods [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper evaluated and compared the performance of a statistical downscaling method and a dynamical downscaling method to simulate the spatial–temporal rainfall distribution. Outputs from RegCM4 Regional Climate Model (RCM) and the CanESM2 Atmosphere–Ocean General Circulation Model (AOGCM) were selected for the data scarce Gwadar‐Ormara basin, Pakistan. The evaluation was based on the climatological average and standard deviation for historic (1971–2000) and future (2041–2070) time periods under Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios. The performance evaluation showed that statistical downscaling is preferred to simulate and project rainfall patterns in the study area. Additionally, the Statistical DownScaling Model (SDSM) showed low R2 values in calibration and validation of the simulations with respect to observed data for the historic period. Overall, SDSM generated satisfactory results in simulating the monthly rainfall cycle of the entire basin. In this study, RegCM4 showed large rainfall errors and missed one rainfall season in the historic period. This study also explored whether the grid‐based rainfall time series of the Asian Precipitation—Highly Resolved Observational Daily Integration Towards Evaluation (APHRODITE) dataset could be used to enlarge and complement the sample of in situ observed rainfall time series. A spatial correlogram was used for observed and APHRODITE rainfall data to assess the consistency between the two data sources, which resulted in rejecting APHRODITE data. For the future time period (2041–2070) under RCPs 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios, rainfall projections did not show significant difference for both downscaling approaches. This may relate to the driving model (CanESM2 AOGCM) and not necessarily suggests poor performance of downscaling; either statistical or dynamical. Hence, the study recommends evaluating a multi‐model ensemble including other GCMs and RCMs for the same area of study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]