Downscaling Precipitation for Local-Scale Hydrologic Modeling Applications: Comparison of Traditional and Combined Change Factor Methodologies
Publication: Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 22, Issue 9
Abstract
Future precipitation projections—and subsequent variation in simulated runoff response—can have a large impact on the planning and design of hydraulic structures and water systems and are, therefore, an important input in hydrologic modeling. These projections are often derived from coarse-scaled climate models and may require downscaling and bias-correction techniques to be suitable for local-scaled applications. Here, one simple and commonly used downscaling approach, called change factor methodology (CFM), is modified to combine both additive and multiplicative change factors depending on the characteristics of the empirical cumulative distribution functions and limitations of precipitation data. The combined change factor methodology (CCFM) is applied as a secondary bias-correction technique to general circulation model (GCM) data for a comparison period of 1985–2014 and a future period of 2055–2084 in six locations throughout the United States that differ greatly in local climate and precipitation patterns to examine the method in a range of settings: Salt Lake City, Utah; Toledo, Ohio; Seattle, Washington; Houston, Texas; Miami, Florida; and Phoenix, Arizona. The CCFM successfully addresses several common issues inherent with traditional CFM, including negative precipitation, overestimation, and artificially inflated numbers of precipitation events. During the comparison period, the CCFM results in precipitation time series that more closely match observed precipitation patterns (average, extreme values, number of events) than traditional CFM, and are generally closer than the values produced by the uncorrected projections. This study also identifies remaining limitations to the CCFM, such as representation of potential nonstationarity in future precipitation events or differences in extreme precipitation values. The uncorrected and CCFM-scaled projections are also used as inputs for a hypothetical urban hydrologic model to demonstrate the consequences of using the CCFM in modeling applications. This modeling exercise shows that on a monthly scale, the projections with no secondary correction result in greater magnitudes of change (compared to historical conditions) in average runoff than the CCFM projections. This highlights that the use of the CCFM as a secondary bias-correction technique has potential to have a substantial impact on the resulting hydrologic analysis and subsequent planning, design, or management strategies.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank the cooperating climate modeling groups for producing and making available their model output. We thank CMIP, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, and the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals for coordinating support and developing software infrastructure to make this work possible. Data used in this analysis may be obtained from http://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org.
References
Alexander, L., et al. (2006). “Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation.” J. Geophys. Res., 111(D5), 1–22.
Anandhi, A., et al. (2011). “Examination of change factor methodologies for climate change impact assessment.” Water Resour. Res., 47(3), 1–10.
BOR (Bureau of Reclamation). (2013). “Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 climate and hydrology projections: Release of downscaled CMIP5 climate projections, comparison with preceding information, and summary of user needs.” U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Technical Services Center, Denver.
BOR (Bureau of Reclamation). (2016). “FAQ: Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 climate and hydrology projections.” ⟨http://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled_cmip_projections/faq.html#biases⟩ (Mar. 12, 2017).
Burian, S. J. (2006). “Urbanization effect on rainfall: Implications for drainage infrastructure performance and design.” Smart growth and climate change: Regional development, infrastructure and adaptation, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, 207–242.
Cloke, H. L., Wetterhall, F., He, Y., Freer, J. E., and Pappenberger, F. (2013). “Modelling climate impact on floods with ensemble climate projections.” Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 139(671), 282–297.
Crawford, N. H., and Linsley, R. K. (1966). “Digital simulation in hydrology: Stanford watershed model 4.”, Stanford Univ., Dept. of Civil Engineering, Stanford, CA.
Deser, C., Phillips, A., Bourdette, V., and Teng, H. (2012). “Uncertainty in climate change projections: The role of internal variability.” Clim. Dyn., 38(3–4), 527–546.
Diaz-Nieto, J., and Wilby, R. L. (2005). “A comparison of statistical downscaling and climate change factor methods: Impacts on low flows in the River Thames, United Kingdom.” Clim. Change, 69(2–3), 245–268.
Fowler, A., and Hennessy, K. (1995). “Potential impacts of global warming on the frequency and magnitude of heavy precipitation.” Nat. Hazards, 11(3), 283–303.
Fowler, H., Blenkinsop, S., and Tebaldi, C. (2007). “Linking climate change modelling to impacts studies: Recent advances in downscaling techniques for hydrological modelling.” Int. J. Climatol., 27(12), 1547–1578.
Giorgi, F., Shields Brodeur, C., and Bates, G. T. (1994). “Regional climate change scenarios over the United States produced with a nested regional climate model.” J. Clim., 7(3), 375–399.
Goharian, E., Burian, S. J., Bardsley, T., and Strong, C. (2015). “Incorporating potential severity into vulnerability assessment of water supply systems under climate change conditions.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 04015051.
Groisman, P. Y., et al. (1999). “Changes in the probability of heavy precipitation: Important indicators of climatic change.” Clim. Change, 42(1), 243–283.
Karamouz, M., Goharian, E., and Nazif, S. (2013). “Reliability assessment of the water supply systems under uncertain future extreme climate conditions.” Earth Interact., 17(20), 1–27.
Karl, T. R., Wang, W.-C., Schlesinger, M. E., Knight, R. W., and Portman, D. (1990). “A method of relating general circulation model simulated climate to the observed local climate. I: Seasonal statistics.” J. Clim., 3(10), 1053–1079.
Koren, V., Finnerty, B., Schaake, J., Smith, M., Seo, D.-J., and Duan, Q.-Y. (1999). “Scale dependencies of hydrologic models to spatial variability of precipitation.” J. Hydrol., 217(3), 285–302.
MacDonald, G. M. (2010). “Water, climate change, and sustainability in the southwest.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 107(50), 21256–21262.
Maraun, D., et al. (2010). “Precipitation downscaling under climate change: Recent developments to bridge the gap between dynamical models and the end user.” Rev. Geophys., 48(3), 1–34.
Maurer, E. P., Brekke, L., Pruitt, T., and Duffy, P. B. (2007). “Fine-resolution climate projections enhance regional climate change impact studies.” Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 88(47), 504.
Meehl, G. A., Arblaster, J. M., and Tebaldi, C. (2005). “Understanding future patterns of increased precipitation intensity in climate model simulations.” Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(18), 1–4.
Ntegeka, V., Baguis, P., Roulin, E., and Willems, P. (2014). “Developing tailored climate change scenarios for hydrological impact assessments.” J. Hydrol., 508, 307–321.
O’Hara, J. K., and Georgakakos, K. P. (2008). “Quantifying the urban water supply impacts of climate change.” Water Resour. Manage., 22(10), 1477–1497.
Prein, A. F., Rasmussen, R. M., Ikeda, K., Liu, C., Clark, M. P., and Holland, G. J. (2016). “The future intensification of hourly precipitation extremes.” Nat. Clim. Change, 7(1), 48–52.
Semadeni-Davies, A., Hernebring, C., Svensson, G., and Gustafsson, L.-G. (2008). “The impacts of climate change and urbanisation on drainage in Helsingborg, Sweden: Combined sewer system.” J. Hydrol., 350(1), 100–113.
Tavakol-Davani, H., Goharian, E., Hansen, C. H., Tavakol-Davani, H., Apul, D., and Burian, S. J. (2016). “How does climate change affect combined sewer overflow in a system benefiting from rainwater harvesting systems?” Sustainable Cities Soc., 27, 430–438.
Wilby, R. L., Wigley, T., Conway, D., Jones, P., Hewitson, B., Main, J., and Wilks, D. (1998). “Statistical downscaling of general circulation model output: A comparison of methods.” Water Resour. Res., 34(11), 2995–3008.
Wood, A. W., Leung, L. R., Sridhar, V., and Lettenmaier, D. (2004). “Hydrologic implications of dynamical and statistical approaches to downscaling climate model outputs.” Clim. Change, 62(1–3), 189–216.
Zahmatkesh, Z., Karamouz, M., Goharian, E., and Burian, S. J. (2014). “Analysis of the effects of climate change on urban storm water runoff using statistically downscaled precipitation data and a change factor approach.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 05014022.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 22 • Issue 9 • September 2017
Copyright
©2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Sep 12, 2016
Accepted: Mar 31, 2017
Published online: Jun 28, 2017
Published in print: Sep 1, 2017
Discussion open until: Nov 28, 2017
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.