Search

Weighting climate models is controversial in climate change impact studies using an ensemble of climate simulations from different climate models. In climate science, there is a general consensus that all climate models should be considered as having equal performance or in other words that all projections are equiprobable. On the other hand, in the impacts and adaptation community, many believe that climate models should be weighted based on their ability to better represent various metrics over a reference period. The debate appears to be partly philosophical in nature as few studies have investigated the impact of using weights in projecting future climate changes. The present study focuses on the impact of assigning weights to climate models for hydrological climate change studies. Five methods are used to determine weights on an ensemble of 28 global climate models (GCMs) adapted from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) database. Using a hydrological model, streamflows are computed over a reference (1961–1990) and future (2061–2090) periods, with and without post-processing climate model outputs. The impacts of using different weighting schemes for GCM simulations are then analyzed in terms of ensemble mean and uncertainty. The results show that weighting GCMs has a limited impact on both projected future climate in term of precipitation and temperature changes and hydrology in terms of nine different streamflow criteria. These results apply to both raw and post-processed GCM model outputs, thus supporting the view that climate models should be considered equiprobable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reanalyses are important sources of meteorological data. Recent studies have shown that precipitation and temperature data from reanalysis present a strong potential for hydrological modelling, especially in regions with a sparse observational network. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impacts of the combination of three global atmospheric reanalyses – ERA-Interim, CFSR and MERRA – and one gridded observation dataset on the accuracy of hydrological model discharge simulations. Two combination approaches were used. The first one combined reanalyses and the observational database using a weighted average of the precipitation and temperature inputs. The second one consisted in using all meteorological inputs separately and combining the simulated hydrographs. The combinations were performed over 460 Canadian watersheds (representing regions with a low density of weather stations) and 370 US watersheds (representing regions with a higher density of weather stations). Results showed significant improvements in the simulated discharges for 68% and 92% of the Canadian watersheds for the input combinations and output combinations, respectively. Moreover, both approaches led to significant improvements in the simulated discharges for 72% of the US watersheds studied. For all watersheds where simulated discharges using observational data had a Nash Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) lower than 0.5, the combination with reanalyses resulted in a median NSE increase of 0.3. This indicates that reanalysis can successfully compensate for deficiencies in the surface observation record and provide significantly better hydrological modelling performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Future change in extreme droughts over 5797 North American watersheds was studied. • Two climate model large ensembles were used to assess the change of frequency. • Changes in meteorological droughts are mostly correlated to mean precipitation. • Large increases in the frequency of hydrological droughts are observed over NA. • Projected changes in future extreme droughts get worse for longer return periods. This paper describes projected frequency changes in extreme summer meteorological and hydrological droughts over North American catchments. It uses two large ensemble climate models (50-member CanESM2 and 40-member CESM1) under the RCP 8.5 scenario to robustly assess frequency changes up to the 100-year drought, relative to the 1980–2009 reference period. Meteorological droughts, linked solely to precipitation deficit, are represented by the 1-month Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI), whereas hydrological droughts are characterized by the 1-month Streamflow Drought Index (SDI), based on hydrological simulation using a lumped hydrological model. Results show widely different patterns for future changes in extreme meteorological versus hydrological droughts. Future meteorological droughts show patterns of increasing and decreasing frequency that roughly match future expected changes of mean summer precipitation, although some regions are nonetheless projected to see more frequent extreme meteorological droughts despite increases in mean summer precipitation. The frequency changes for the 100-year meteorological droughts can be quite severe, with up to a 20-fold increase observed over some watersheds. On the other hand, hydrological droughts, which combine the effect of precipitation and temperature changes, show a mostly uniform pattern of large to very large increases in drought frequency. This shows that the projected temperature increase is a main driver of future extreme hydrological droughts, enough to overcome the projected increase in mean summer precipitation for many North American catchments. Projected changes in both meteorological and hydrological droughts get consistently worse for the longer considered return periods. In other words, frequency changes for the 100-year droughts are more significant than those expected for the 2- and 20-year droughts. This gradual worsening toward larger extremes has potentially large societal and economic impacts. The large projected increases in the frequency of extreme hydrological drought frequency (up to 27 times) are likely to severely stress water management systems across North America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bias correction is usually implemented prior to using climate model outputs for impact studies. However, bias correction methods that are commonly used treat climate variables independently and often ignore inter-variable dependencies. The effects of ignoring such dependencies on impact studies need to be investigated. This study aims to assess the impacts of correcting the inter-variable correlation of climate model outputs on hydrological modeling. To this end, a joint bias correction (JBC) method which corrects the joint distribution of two variables as a whole is compared with an independent bias correction (IBC) method; this is considered in terms of correcting simulations of precipitation and temperature from 26 climate models for hydrological modeling over 12 watersheds located in various climate regimes. The results show that the simulated precipitation and temperature are considerably biased not only in the individual distributions, but also in their correlations, which in turn result in biased hydrological simulations. In addition to reducing the biases of the individual characteristics of precipitation and temperature, the JBC method can also reduce the bias in precipitation-temperature (P-T) correlations. In terms of hydrological modeling, the JBC method performs significantly better than the IBC method for 11 out of the 12 watersheds over the calibration period. For the validation period, the advantages of the JBC method are greatly reduced as the performance becomes dependent on the watershed, GCM and hydrological metric considered. For arid/tropical and snowfall-rainfall-mixed watersheds, JBC performs better than IBC. For snowfall- or rainfall-dominated watersheds, however, the two methods behave similarly, with IBC performing somewhat better than JBC. Overall, the results emphasize the advantages of correcting the P-T correlation when using climate model-simulated precipitation and temperature to assess the impact of climate change on watershed hydrology. However, a thorough validation and a comparison with other methods are recommended before using the JBC method, since it may perform worse than the IBC method for some cases due to bias nonstationarity of climate model outputs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]