Search

[Display omitted] • Five discharge datasets have median correlation coefficients > 0.6 with the observations. • Overestimation of monthly mean flow is more common than underestimation. • GRFR showed the best estimate at around 40% of the locations. • None of the models provides good estimates for rivers and streams in arid regions. High-resolution global flow discharge datasets are critical to understand the terrestrial water cycle and river ecosystem services. Recently, a number of global hydrological models have been developed to capture global river flow dynamics at locally relevant scales. However, the relative accuracy of these simulated flow discharges is largely unknown. In this paper, using the largest observed streamflow datasets from > 26,000 gauging stations, we evaluated the performance of monthly and sub-monthly flow variation (1980–2014) generated from five major global hydrological models, Catchment-based Macro-scale Floodplain model (CaMa-Flood), Global Flood Awareness System (GloFAS-reanalysis), Global Reach-level Flood Reanalysis (GRFR), PCRaster GLOBal Water Balance model (PCR-GLOBWB), and Water Global Assessment and Prognosis (WaterGAP). Significant spatial heterogeneity in model performance was identified. We found that estimates by all five discharge datasets have a relatively high correlation with the observations (medians > 0.6). But none of them showed adequate correlations between simulated and observed flows for systems in Southwest or Central U.S.A., South Africa, or South Australia. Across all models, overestimation of monthly mean flow was more common than underestimation and high flows at a sub-monthly scale were more accurately characterized than low flows. Performance of all models was poor in Africa and Oceania. No single model performed universally best at all gauging stations, but GRFR showed the best estimate at around 40 % of the locations. None of the models provided satisfying estimates for rivers and streams in arid regions. We also found a significant negative effect of flow regulation on the predictive accuracy of all models. Our study highlights the importance of thorough evaluation of global discharge datasets before their local and regional application and provides guidance for future enhancement of global hydrological models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: This paper presents an assessment of the impacts of climate change on a series of indicators of hydrological regimes across the global domain, using a global hydrological model run with climate scenarios constructed using pattern-scaling from 21 CMIP3 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 3) climate models. Changes are compared with natural variability, with a significant change being defined as greater than the standard deviation of the hydrological indicator in the absence of climate change. Under an SRES (Special Report on Emissions Scenarios) A1b emissions scenario, substantial proportions of the land surface (excluding Greenland and Antarctica) would experience significant changes in hydrological behaviour by 2050; under one climate model scenario (Hadley Centre HadCM3), average annual runoff increases significantly over 47% of the land surface and decreases over 36%; only 17% therefore sees no significant change. There is considerable variability between regions, depending largely on projected changes in precipitation. Uncertainty in projected river flow regimes is dominated by variation in the spatial patterns of climate change between climate models (hydrological model uncertainty is not included). There is, however, a strong degree of consistency in the overall magnitude and direction of change. More than two-thirds of climate models project a significant increase in average annual runoff across almost a quarter of the land surface, and a significant decrease over 14%, with considerably higher degrees of consistency in some regions. Most climate models project increases in runoff in Canada and high-latitude eastern Europe and Siberia, and decreases in runoff in central Europe, around the Mediterranean, the Mashriq, central America and Brasil. There is some evidence that project change in runoff at the regional scale is not linear with change in global average temperature change. The effects of uncertainty in the rate of future emissions is relatively small. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]