Statistical bias correction of global climate projections - Consequences for large scale modeling of flood flows

30Citations
Citations of this article
86Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

General circulation models (GCMs) project an increasing frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall events due to global climate change. This rather holds true for regions that are even expected to experience an overall decrease in average annual precipitation. Consequently, this may be attended by an increasing frequency and magnitude of flood events. However, time series of GCMs show a bias in simulating 20th century precipitation and temperature fields and, therefore, cannot directly be used to force hydrological models in order to assess the impact of the projected climate change on certain components of the hydrological cycle. For a posteriori correction, the so-called delta change approach is widely-used which adds the 30-year monthly differences for temperature or ratios for precipitation of the GCM data to each month of a historic climate data set. As the variability of the climate variables in the scenario period is not transferred, this approach is especially questionable if discharge extremes are to be analyzed. In order to preserve the variability given by the GCM, methods of statistical bias correction are applied. This study aims to investigate the impact of two methods of bias correction, the delta change approach and a statistical bias correction, on the large scale modeling of flood discharges, using the example of 25 macroscale catchments in Europe. The discharge simulation is carried out with the global integrated model WaterGAP3 (Water - Global Assessment and Prognosis). Results show that the two bias correction methods lead to distinctively different trends in future flood flows. © Author(s) 2012.

Figures

  • Table 1. GRDC gauging stations used for analysis.
  • Fig. 1. Geographical distribution of the GRDC gauging stations used for analysis, the corresponding catchment areas are highlighted in yellow.
  • Fig. 2. Comparison of flood indices derived from measured and simulated hydrographs for the reference period 1971–2000: (a) mean annual flood, (b) median annual flood, (c) 25-year flood, and (d) 50-year flood.
  • Fig. 3. Scatter plots between the CFs derived from the statistical bias corrected time series (x-axis) and the CFs resulting from the delta change time series (y-axis), separately for all indices and GCMs. In each plot, the data points of the A2 emission scenario are depicted in red and the data points of the B1 emission scenario are depicted in blue. The solid red line represents the 1:1 line.
  • Fig. 4. Range between the two emission scenarios for the Qmean CFs (top) and the 50-year flood level CFs (bottom) for the individual study catchments.

References Powered by Scopus

An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high-resolution grids

3262Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle

2140Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

New global hydrography derived from spaceborne elevation data

1551Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Bias-corrected climate projections for South Asia from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project-6

242Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Modeling the effects of climatic and land use changes on phytoplankton and water quality of the largest Turkish freshwater lake: Lake Beyşehir

110Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Bias correction of global and regional simulated daily precipitation and surface mean temperature over Southeast Asia using quantile mapping method

97Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Eisner, S., Voss, F., & Kynast, E. (2012). Statistical bias correction of global climate projections - Consequences for large scale modeling of flood flows. Advances in Geosciences, 31, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-31-75-2012

Readers over time

‘11‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘250481216

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 48

70%

Researcher 13

19%

Professor / Associate Prof. 4

6%

Lecturer / Post doc 4

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Earth and Planetary Sciences 20

36%

Engineering 17

30%

Environmental Science 11

20%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8

14%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0