Articles | Volume 20, issue 8
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3245-2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3245-2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Research article
| 
10 Aug 2016
Research article |
| 10 Aug 2016
Sensitivity of future continental United States water deficit projections to general circulation models, the evapotranspiration estimation method, and the greenhouse gas emission scenario
Seungwoo Chang
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University
of Florida, 570 Weil Hall, P.O. Box 116601, Gainesville, FL
32611, USA
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University
of Florida, 570 Weil Hall, P.O. Box 116601, Gainesville, FL
32611, USA
Water Institute, University of Florida, 570 Weil Hall,
P.O. Box 116601, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
Syewoon Hwang
Department of
Agricultural Engineering, Institute of Agriculture and Life Science,
Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, 660-701, South Korea
Rafael Muñoz-Carpena
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University
of Florida, 287 Frazier Rogers Hall, P.O. Box 110570,
Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
Related authors
Seungwoo Chang, Wendy Graham, Jeffrey Geurink, Nisai Wanakule, and Tirusew Asefa
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 4793–4813, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4793-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4793-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
It is important to understand potential impacts of climate change and human water use on streamflow and groundwater levels. This study used climate models with an integrated hydrologic model to project future streamflow and groundwater level in Tampa Bay for a variety of future water use scenarios. Impacts of different climate projections on streamflow were found to be much stronger than the impacts of different human water use scenarios, but both were significant for groundwater projection.
Seungwoo Chang, Wendy Graham, Jeffrey Geurink, Nisai Wanakule, and Tirusew Asefa
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 4793–4813, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4793-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4793-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
It is important to understand potential impacts of climate change and human water use on streamflow and groundwater levels. This study used climate models with an integrated hydrologic model to project future streamflow and groundwater level in Tampa Bay for a variety of future water use scenarios. Impacts of different climate projections on streamflow were found to be much stronger than the impacts of different human water use scenarios, but both were significant for groundwater projection.
Rafael Muñoz-Carpena, Claire Lauvernet, and Nadia Carluer
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 53–70, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-53-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-53-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Seasonal shallow water tables (WTs) in lowlands limit vegetation-buffer efficiency to control runoff pollution. Mechanistic models are needed to quantify true field efficiency. A new simplified algorithm for soil infiltration over WTs is tested against reference models and lab data showing WT effects depend on local settings but are negligible after 2 m depth. The algorithm is coupled to a complete vegetation buffer model in a companion paper to analyze pesticide and sediment control in situ.
Claire Lauvernet and Rafael Muñoz-Carpena
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 71–87, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-71-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-71-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Vegetation buffers, often placed in lowlands to control runoff pollution, can exhibit limited efficiency due to seasonal shallow water tables (WTs). A new shallow water table infiltration algorithm developed in a companion paper is coupled to a complete vegetation buffer model to quantify pesticide and sediment control in the field. We evaluated the model on two field experiments in France with and without WT conditions and show WTs can control efficiency depending on land and climate settings.
S. Hwang and W. D. Graham
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 4481–4502, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-4481-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-4481-2013, 2013
Related subject area
Subject: Global hydrology | Techniques and Approaches: Uncertainty analysis
Leveraging multi-variable observations to reduce and quantify the output uncertainty of a global hydrological model: evaluation of three ensemble-based approaches for the Mississippi River basin
Information content of soil hydrology in a west Amazon watershed as informed by GRACE
Diagnostic evaluation of river discharge into the Arctic Ocean and its impact on oceanic volume transports
The 63-year changes in annual streamflow volumes across Europe with a focus on the Mediterranean basin
Multivariable evaluation of land surface processes in forced and coupled modes reveals new error sources to the simulated water cycle in the IPSL (Institute Pierre Simon Laplace) climate model
Implications of model selection: a comparison of publicly available, conterminous US-extent hydrologic component estimates
Historical and future changes in global flood magnitude – evidence from a model–observation investigation
A global-scale evaluation of extreme event uncertainty in the eartH2Observe project
Assessment of precipitation error propagation in multi-model global water resource reanalysis
The potential of global reanalysis datasets in identifying flood events in Southern Africa
Hydrological assessment of atmospheric forcing uncertainty in the Euro-Mediterranean area using a land surface model
Global change in streamflow extremes under climate change over the 21st century
Have precipitation extremes and annual totals been increasing in the world's dry regions over the last 60 years?
Variations of global and continental water balance components as impacted by climate forcing uncertainty and human water use
Evaluating uncertainty in estimates of soil moisture memory with a reverse ensemble approach
Flood and drought hydrologic monitoring: the role of model parameter uncertainty
Sensitivity of simulated global-scale freshwater fluxes and storages to input data, hydrological model structure, human water use and calibration
Climate change impacts on runoff in West Africa: a review
Benchmark products for land evapotranspiration: LandFlux-EVAL multi-data set synthesis
Disinformative data in large-scale hydrological modelling
The impact of climate mitigation on projections of future drought
Calibration and evaluation of a semi-distributed watershed model of Sub-Saharan Africa using GRACE data
Monitoring and quantifying future climate projections of dryness and wetness extremes: SPI bias
Improving runoff estimates from regional climate models: a performance analysis in Spain
A comparative analysis of projected impacts of climate change on river runoff from global and catchment-scale hydrological models
Error characterisation of global active and passive microwave soil moisture datasets
Assessment of soil moisture fields from imperfect climate models with uncertain satellite observations
Petra Döll, Howlader Mohammad Mehedi Hasan, Kerstin Schulze, Helena Gerdener, Lara Börger, Somayeh Shadkam, Sebastian Ackermann, Seyed-Mohammad Hosseini-Moghari, Hannes Müller Schmied, Andreas Güntner, and Jürgen Kusche
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2259–2295, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2259-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2259-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Currently, global hydrological models do not benefit from observations of model output variables to reduce and quantify model output uncertainty. For the Mississippi River basin, we explored three approaches for using both streamflow and total water storage anomaly observations to adjust the parameter sets in a global hydrological model. We developed a method for considering the observation uncertainties to quantify the uncertainty of model output and provide recommendations.
Elias C. Massoud, A. Anthony Bloom, Marcos Longo, John T. Reager, Paul A. Levine, and John R. Worden
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1407–1423, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1407-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1407-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The water balance on river basin scales depends on a number of soil physical processes. Gaining information on these quantities using observations is a key step toward improving the skill of land surface hydrology models. In this study, we use data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (NASA-GRACE) to inform and constrain these hydrologic processes. We show that our model is able to simulate the land hydrologic cycle for a watershed in the Amazon from January 2003 to December 2012.
Susanna Winkelbauer, Michael Mayer, Vanessa Seitner, Ervin Zsoter, Hao Zuo, and Leopold Haimberger
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 279–304, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-279-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-279-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluate Arctic river discharge using in situ observations and state-of-the-art reanalyses, inter alia the most recent Global Flood Awareness System (GloFAS) river discharge reanalysis version 3.1. Furthermore, we combine reanalysis data, in situ observations, ocean reanalyses, and satellite data and use a Lagrangian optimization scheme to close the Arctic's volume budget on annual and seasonal scales, resulting in one reliable and up-to-date estimate of every volume budget term.
Daniele Masseroni, Stefania Camici, Alessio Cislaghi, Giorgio Vacchiano, Christian Massari, and Luca Brocca
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5589–5601, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5589-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5589-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluate 63 years of changes in annual streamflow volume across Europe, using a data set of more than 3000 stations, with a special focus on the Mediterranean basin. The results show decreasing (increasing) volumes in the southern (northern) regions. These trends are strongly consistent with the changes in temperature and precipitation.
Hiroki Mizuochi, Agnès Ducharne, Frédérique Cheruy, Josefine Ghattas, Amen Al-Yaari, Jean-Pierre Wigneron, Vladislav Bastrikov, Philippe Peylin, Fabienne Maignan, and Nicolas Vuichard
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2199–2221, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2199-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2199-2021, 2021
Samuel Saxe, William Farmer, Jessica Driscoll, and Terri S. Hogue
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1529–1568, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1529-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1529-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We compare simulated values from 47 models estimating surface water over the USA. Results show that model uncertainty is substantial over much of the conterminous USA and especially high in the west. Applying the studied models to a simple water accounting equation shows that model selection can significantly affect research results. This paper concludes that multimodel ensembles help to best represent uncertainty in conclusions and suggest targeted research efforts in arid regions.
Hong Xuan Do, Fang Zhao, Seth Westra, Michael Leonard, Lukas Gudmundsson, Julien Eric Stanislas Boulange, Jinfeng Chang, Philippe Ciais, Dieter Gerten, Simon N. Gosling, Hannes Müller Schmied, Tobias Stacke, Camelia-Eliza Telteu, and Yoshihide Wada
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 1543–1564, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-1543-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-1543-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We presented a global comparison between observed and simulated trends in a flood index over the 1971–2005 period using the Global Streamflow Indices and Metadata archive and six global hydrological models available through The Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project. Streamflow simulations over 2006–2099 period robustly project high flood hazard in several regions. These high-flood-risk areas, however, are under-sampled by the current global streamflow databases.
Toby R. Marthews, Eleanor M. Blyth, Alberto Martínez-de la Torre, and Ted I. E. Veldkamp
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 75–92, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-75-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-75-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change impact modellers can only act on predictions of the occurrence of an extreme event in the Earth system if they know the uncertainty in that prediction and how uncertainty is attributable to different model components. Using eartH2Observe data, we quantify the balance between different sources of uncertainty in global evapotranspiration and runoff, making a crucial contribution to understanding the spatial distribution of water resources allocation deficiencies.
Md Abul Ehsan Bhuiyan, Efthymios I. Nikolopoulos, Emmanouil N. Anagnostou, Jan Polcher, Clément Albergel, Emanuel Dutra, Gabriel Fink, Alberto Martínez-de la Torre, and Simon Munier
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 1973–1994, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-1973-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-1973-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates the propagation of precipitation uncertainty, and its interaction with hydrologic modeling, in global water resource reanalysis. Analysis is based on ensemble hydrologic simulations for a period of 11 years based on six global hydrologic models and five precipitation datasets. Results show that uncertainties in the model simulations are attributed to both uncertainty in precipitation forcing and the model structure.
Gaby J. Gründemann, Micha Werner, and Ted I. E. Veldkamp
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 4667–4683, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4667-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4667-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Flooding in vulnerable and data-sparse regions such as the Limpopo basin in Southern Africa is a key concern. Data available to local flood managers are often limited, inconsistent or asymmetrically distributed. We demonstrate that freely available global datasets are well suited to provide essential information. Despite the poor performance of simulated discharges, these datasets hold potential in identifying damaging flood events, particularly for higher-resolution datasets and larger basins.
Emiliano Gelati, Bertrand Decharme, Jean-Christophe Calvet, Marie Minvielle, Jan Polcher, David Fairbairn, and Graham P. Weedon
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 2091–2115, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2091-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2091-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
We compared land surface model simulations forced by several meteorological datasets with observations over the Euro-Mediterranean area, for the 1979–2012 period. Precipitation was the most uncertain forcing variable. The impacts of forcing uncertainty were larger on the mean and standard deviation rather than the timing, shape and inter-annual variability of simulated discharge. Simulated leaf area index and surface soil moisture were relatively insensitive to these uncertainties.
Behzad Asadieh and Nir Y. Krakauer
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 5863–5874, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5863-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5863-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Multi-model analysis of global streamflow extremes for the 20th and 21st centuries under two warming scenarios is performed. About 37 and 43 % of global land areas show potential for increases in flood and drought events. Nearly 10 % of global land areas, holding around 30 % of world’s population, reflect a potentially worsening hazard of flood and drought. A significant increase in streamflow of the regions near and above the Arctic Circle, and decrease in subtropical arid areas, is projected.
Sebastian Sippel, Jakob Zscheischler, Martin Heimann, Holger Lange, Miguel D. Mahecha, Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, Friederike E. L. Otto, and Markus Reichstein
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 441–458, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-441-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-441-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
The paper re-investigates the question whether observed precipitation extremes and annual totals have been increasing in the world's dry regions over the last 60 years. Despite recently postulated increasing trends, we demonstrate that large uncertainties prevail due to (1) the choice of dryness definition and (2) statistical data processing. In fact, we find only minor (and only some significant) increases if (1) dryness is based on aridity and (2) statistical artefacts are accounted for.
Hannes Müller Schmied, Linda Adam, Stephanie Eisner, Gabriel Fink, Martina Flörke, Hyungjun Kim, Taikan Oki, Felix Theodor Portmann, Robert Reinecke, Claudia Riedel, Qi Song, Jing Zhang, and Petra Döll
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2877–2898, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2877-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2877-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The assessment of water balance components of the global land surface by means of hydrological models is affected by large uncertainties, in particular related to meteorological forcing. We analyze the effect of five state-of-the-art forcings on water balance components at different spatial and temporal scales modeled with WaterGAP. Furthermore, the dominant effect (precipitation/human alteration) for long-term changes in river discharge is assessed.
Dave MacLeod, Hannah Cloke, Florian Pappenberger, and Antje Weisheimer
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2737–2743, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2737-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2737-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Soil moisture memory is a key aspect of seasonal climate predictions, through feedback between the land surface and the atmosphere. Estimates have been made of the length of soil moisture memory; however, we show here how estimates of memory show large variation with uncertain model parameters. Explicit representation of model uncertainty may then improve the realism of simulations and seasonal climate forecasts.
N. W. Chaney, J. D. Herman, P. M. Reed, and E. F. Wood
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 3239–3251, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3239-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3239-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
Land surface modeling is playing an increasing role in global monitoring and prediction of extreme hydrologic events. However, uncertainties in parameter identifiability limit the reliability of model predictions. This study makes use of petascale computing to perform a comprehensive evaluation of land surface modeling for global flood and drought monitoring and suggests paths forward to overcome the challenges posed by parameter uncertainty.
H. Müller Schmied, S. Eisner, D. Franz, M. Wattenbach, F. T. Portmann, M. Flörke, and P. Döll
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 3511–3538, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-3511-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-3511-2014, 2014
P. Roudier, A. Ducharne, and L. Feyen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2789–2801, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2789-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2789-2014, 2014
B. Mueller, M. Hirschi, C. Jimenez, P. Ciais, P. A. Dirmeyer, A. J. Dolman, J. B. Fisher, M. Jung, F. Ludwig, F. Maignan, D. G. Miralles, M. F. McCabe, M. Reichstein, J. Sheffield, K. Wang, E. F. Wood, Y. Zhang, and S. I. Seneviratne
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 3707–3720, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3707-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3707-2013, 2013
A. Kauffeldt, S. Halldin, A. Rodhe, C.-Y. Xu, and I. K. Westerberg
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2845–2857, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-2845-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-2845-2013, 2013
I. H. Taylor, E. Burke, L. McColl, P. D. Falloon, G. R. Harris, and D. McNeall
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2339–2358, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-2339-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-2339-2013, 2013
H. Xie, L. Longuevergne, C. Ringler, and B. R. Scanlon
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 3083–3099, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3083-2012, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3083-2012, 2012
F. Sienz, O. Bothe, and K. Fraedrich
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 2143–2157, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-2143-2012, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-2143-2012, 2012
D. González-Zeas, L. Garrote, A. Iglesias, and A. Sordo-Ward
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 1709–1723, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-1709-2012, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-1709-2012, 2012
S. N. Gosling, R. G. Taylor, N. W. Arnell, and M. C. Todd
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 279–294, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-279-2011, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-279-2011, 2011
W. A. Dorigo, K. Scipal, R. M. Parinussa, Y. Y. Liu, W. Wagner, R. A. M. de Jeu, and V. Naeimi
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 2605–2616, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-2605-2010, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-2605-2010, 2010
G. Schumann, D. J. Lunt, P. J. Valdes, R. A. M. de Jeu, K. Scipal, and P. D. Bates
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 1545–1553, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-1545-2009, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-1545-2009, 2009
Cited articles
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M.: Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements, FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, 1998.
Asefa, T. and Adams, A.: Reducing bias-corrected precipitation projection uncertainties: a Bayesian-based indicator-weighting approach, Reg. Environ. Change, 13, 111–120, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0431-9, 2013.
Bae, D. H., Jung, I. W., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Hydrologic uncertainties in climate change from IPCC AR4 GCM simulations of the Chungju Basin, Korea, J. Hydrol., 401, 90–105, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.02.012, 2011.
Baker, N. C. and Huang, H.-P.: A Comparative Study of Precipitation and Evaporation between CMIP3 and CMIP5 Climate Model Ensembles in Semiarid Regions, J. Climate, 27, 3731–3749, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00398.1, 2014.
Bentsen, M., Bethke, I., Debernard, J. B., Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., Seland, Ø., Drange, H., Roelandt, C., Seierstad, I. A., Hoose, C., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: The Norwegian Earth System Model, NorESM1-M – Part 1: Description and basic evaluation of the physical climate, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 687–720, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-687-2013, 2013.
Block, K. and Mauritsen, T.: Forcing and feedback in the MPI-ESM-LR coupled model under abruptly quadrupled CO2, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 5, 676–691, https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20041, 2013.
Burke, E. J. and Brown, S. J.: Evaluating Uncertainties in the Projection of Future Drought, J. Hydrometeorol., 9, 292–299, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JHM929.1, 2008.
Chaouche, K., Neppel, L., Dieulin, C., Pujol, N., Ladouche, B., Martin, E., Salas, D., and Caballero, Y.: Analyses of precipitation, temperature and evapotranspiration in a French Mediterranean region in the context of climate change, Compt Rendus Geosci., 342, 234–243, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crte.2010.02.001, 2010.
Chong-Hai, X. and Ying, X.: The projection of temperature and precipitation over China under RCP scenarios using a CMIP5 multi-model ensemble, Atmos. Ocean. Sci. Lett., 5, 527–533, https://doi.org/10.1080/16742834.2012.11447042, 2012.
Gaetani, M. and Mohino, E.: Decadal prediction of the sahelian precipitation in CMIP5 simulations, J. Climate, 26, 7708–7719, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00635.1, 2013.
Georgakakos, A., Fleming, P., Dettinger, M., Peters-Lidard, C., Richmond, T., Reckhow, K., White, K., and Yates, D.: Ch. 3: Water Resources. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, 2014.
Giorgi, F. and Mearns, L.: Calculation of average, uncertainty range, and reliability of regional climate changes from AOGCM simulations via the “reliability ensemble averaging”(REA) method, J. Climate, 15, 1141–1158, 2002.
Guo, H., Golaz, J.-C., Donner, L. J., Ginoux, P., and Hemler, R. S.: Multivariate Probability Density Functions with Dynamics in the GFDL Atmospheric General Circulation Model: Global Tests, J. Climate, 27, 2087–2108, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00347.1, 2014.
Hargreaves, G. H. and Allen, R. G.: History and Evaluation of Hargreaves Evapotranspiration Equation, J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 129, 53–63, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2003)129:1(53), 2003.
Hawkins, E. and Sutton, R.: The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 90, 1095–1107, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2607.1, 2009.
Hawkins, E. and Sutton, R.: The potential to narrow uncertainty in projections of regional precipitation change, Clim. Dynam., 37, 407–418, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0810-6, 2010.
Homma, T. and Saltelli, A.: Importance measures in global sensitivity analysis of nonlinear models, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 52, 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(96)00002-6, 1996.
Hwang, S. and Graham, W. D.: Development and comparative evaluation of a stochastic analog method to downscale daily GCM precipitation, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 4481–4502, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-4481-2013, 2013.
Irmak, S., Irmak, A., Allen, R. G., and Jones, J. W.: Solar and Net Radiation-Based Equations to Estimate Reference Evapotranspiration in Humid Climates, J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 129, 336–347, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2003)129:5(336), 2003.
Ishak, A. M., Bray, M., Remesan, R., and Han, D.: Estimating reference evapotranspiration using numerical weather modelling, Hydrol. Process., 24, 3490–3509, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7770, 2010.
Ji, D., Wang, L., Feng, J., Wu, Q., Cheng, H., Zhang, Q., Yang, J., Dong, W., Dai, Y., Gong, D., Zhang, R.-H., Wang, X., Liu, J., Moore, J. C., Chen, D., and Zhou, M.: Description and basic evaluation of Beijing Normal University Earth System Model (BNU-ESM) version 1, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 2039–2064, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-2039-2014, 2014.
Johnson, F. and Sharma, A.: Measurement of GCM Skill in Predicting Variables Relevant for Hydroclimatological Assessments, J. Climate, 22, 4373–4382, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2681.1, 2009.
Karl, T. R. and Koss, W. J.: Historical Climatology Series 4–3: Regional and National Monthly, Seasonal, and Annual Temperature Weighted by Area, 1895–1983, 1984.
Kay, A. L. and Davies, H. N.: Calculating potential evaporation from climate model data: A source of uncertainty for hydrological climate change impacts, J. Hydrol., 358, 221–239, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.06.005, 2008.
Kharin, V. V., Zwiers, F. W., Zhang, X., and Wehner, M.: Changes in temperature and precipitation extremes in the CMIP5 ensemble, Climate Change, 119, 345–357, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0705-8, 2013.
Kingston, D. G., Todd, M. C., Taylor, R. G., Thompson, J. R., and Arnell, N. W.: Uncertainty in the estimation of potential evapotranspiration under climate change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L20403, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL040267, 2009.
Knutti, R. and Sedláček, J.: Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projections, Nature Climate Change, 3, 369–373, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1716, 2012.
Koedyk, L. P. and Kingston, D. G.: Potential evapotranspiration method influence on climate change impacts on river flow: a mid-latitude case study, Hydrol. Res., https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2016.152, 2016.
LaFond, K. M., Griffis, V. W., and Spellman, P.: Forcing Hydrologic Models with GCM Output: Bias Correction vs. the “Delta Change” Method, in World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2014, 1, 2146–2155, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA., 2014.
Linacre, E. T.: Estimating US Class A Pan Evaporation from Few Climate Data, Water Int., 19, 5–14, https://doi.org/10.1080/02508069408686189, 1994.
Maurer, E. P. and Hidalgo, H. G.: Utility of daily vs. monthly large-scale climate data: an intercomparison of two statistical downscaling methods, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 551–563, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-551-2008, 2008.
McAfee, S. A.: Methodological differences in projected potential evapotranspiration, Climate Change, 120, 915–930, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0864-7, 2013.
Melillo, J. M., Richmond, T., and Yohe, G. W.: Climate change impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, US Global Change Research Program, 841, https://doi.org/10.7930/J0Z31WJ2, 2014.
Mood, A. M., Graybill, F. A., and Boes, D. C.: Introduction to theory of statistics, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1974.
Muerth, M. J., Gauvin St-Denis, B., Ricard, S., Velázquez, J. A., Schmid, J., Minville, M., Caya, D., Chaumont, D., Ludwig, R., and Turcotte, R.: On the need for bias correction in regional climate scenarios to assess climate change impacts on river runoff, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1189–1204, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1189-2013, 2013.
Orlowsky, B. and Seneviratne, S. I.: Elusive drought: uncertainty in observed trends and short- and long-term CMIP5 projections, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1765–1781, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1765-2013, 2013.
Quintana Seguí, P., Ribes, A., Martin, E., Habets, F., and Boé, J.: Comparison of three downscaling methods in simulating the impact of climate change on the hydrology of Mediterranean basins, J. Hydrol., 383, 111–124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.09.050, 2010.
Pierce, D. W., Cayan, D. R., Maurer, E. P., Abatzoglou, J. T., and Hegewisch, K. C.: Improved bias correction techniques for hydrological simulations of climate change, J. Hydrometeorol., 150915153707007, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-14-0236.1, 2015.
Randall, D. A., Wood, R. A., Bony, S., Colman, R., Fichefet, T., Fyve, J., Kattsov, V., Pitman, A., Shukla, J., Srinivasan, J., Stouffer, R. J., Sumi, A., and Taylor, K. E.: Climate Models and Their Evaluation, in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., and Miller, H. L., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 591–662, 2007.
Rao, J. N. K. and Scott, A. J.: The Analysis of Categorical Data From Complex Sample Survey?: Chi-Squared Tests for Goodness of Fit and Independence in Two-Way Tables, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 76, 221–230, 1981.
Roderick, M. L., Hobbins, M. T., and Farquhar, G. D.: Pan Evaporation Trends and the Terrestrial Water Balance. I. Principles and Observations, Geogr. Compass, 3, 746–760, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2008.00213.x, 2009a.
Roderick, M. L., Hobbins, M. T., and Farquhar, G. D.: Pan Evaporation Trends and the Terrestrial Water Balance. II. Energy Balance and Interpretation, Geogr. Compass, 3, 761–780, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2008.00214.x, 2009b.
Rose, K. A., Smith, E. P., Gardner, R. H., Brenkert, A. L., and Bartell, S. M.: Parameter sensitivities, monte carlo filtering, and model forecasting under uncertainty, J. Forecast., 10, 117–133, https://doi.org/10.1002/for.3980100108, 1991.
Rotstayn, L. D., Jeffrey, S. J., Collier, M. A., Dravitzki, S. M., Hirst, A. C., Syktus, J. I., and Wong, K. K.: Aerosol- and greenhouse gas-induced changes in summer rainfall and circulation in the Australasian region: a study using single-forcing climate simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 6377–6404, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-6377-2012, 2012.
Saltelli, A.: Sensitivity analysis: Could better methods be used?, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 3789–3793, https://doi.org/10.1029/1998JD100042, 1999.
Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., Saisana, M., and Tarantola, S.: Global sensitivity analysis: the primer, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008.
Saltelli, A., Annoni, P., Azzini, I., Campolongo, F., Ratto, M., and Tarantola, S.: Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index, Comput. Phys. Commun., 181, 259–270, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.09.018, 2010.
Schwalm, C. R., Huntinzger, D. N., Michalak, A. M., Fisher, J. B., Kimball, J. S., Mueller, B., Zhang, K., and Zhang, Y.: Sensitivity of inferred climate model skill to evaluation decisions: a case study using CMIP5 evapotranspiration, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 024028, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024028, 2013.
Sung, J. H., Kang, H.-S., Park, S., Cho, C., Bae, D. H., and Kim, Y.-O.: Projection of Extreme Precipitation at the end of 21st Century over South Korea based on Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP), Atmosphere, 22, 221–231, https://doi.org/10.14191/Atmos.2012.22.2.221, 2012.
Tabari, H.: Evaluation of Reference Crop Evapotranspiration Equations in Various Climates, Water Resour. Manag., 24, 2311–2337, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-009-9553-8, 2010.
Tabari, H., Grismer, M. E., and Trajkovic, S.: Comparative analysis of 31 reference evapotranspiration methods under humid conditions, Irrig. Sci., 31, 107–117, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-011-0295-z, 2013.
Taylor, I. H., Burke, E., McColl, L., Falloon, P. D., Harris, G. R., and McNeall, D.: The impact of climate mitigation on projections of future drought, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2339–2358, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-2339-2013, 2013.
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 485–498, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1, 2012.
Tebaldi, C., Smith, R. L., Nychka, D., and Mearns, L. O.: Quantifying Uncertainty in Projections of Regional Climate Change: A Bayesian Approach to the Analysis of Multimodel Ensembles, J. Climate, 18, 1524–1540, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3363.1, 2005.
Teutschbein, C. and Seibert, J.: Bias correction of regional climate model simulations for hydrological climate-change impact studies: Review and evaluation of different methods, J. Hydrol., 456–457, 12–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.05.052, 2012.
Thom, A. S., Thony, J.-L., and Vauclin, M.: On the proper employment of evaporation pans and atmometers in estimating potential transpiration, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 107, 711–736, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49710745316, 1981.
Thomas, A.: Spatial and temporal characteristics of potential evapotranspiration trends over China, Int. J. Climatol., 20, 381–396, 2000.
Thompson, J. R., Green, A. J. and Kingston, D. G.: Potential evapotranspiration-related uncertainty in climate change impacts on river flow: An assessment for the Mekong River basin, J. Hydrol., 510, 259–279, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.12.010, 2014.
Walsh, J., Wuebbles, D., Hayhoe, K., Kossin, J., Stephens, G., Thorne, P., Vose, R., Wehner, M., Willis, J., Anderson, D., Doney, S., Feely, R., Hennon, P., Kharin, V., Knutson, T., Landerer, F., Lenton, T., Kennedy, J., and Somerville, R.: Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate, Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, 2014.
Wang, W., Xing, W., Shao, Q., Yu, Z., Peng, S., Yang, T., Yong, B., Taylor, J., and Singh, V. P.: Changes in reference evapotranspiration across the Tibetan Plateau: Observations and future projections based on statistical downscaling, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 4049–4068, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50393, 2013.
Wang, W., Xing, W., and Shao, Q.: How large are uncertainties in future projection of reference evapotranspiration through different approaches?, J. Hydrol., 524, 696–700, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.03.033, 2015.
Watanabe, S., Hajima, T., Sudo, K., Nagashima, T., Takemura, T., Okajima, H., Nozawa, T., Kawase, H., Abe, M., Yokohata, T., Ise, T., Sato, H., Kato, E., Takata, K., Emori, S., and Kawamiya, M.: MIROC-ESM 2010: model description and basic results of CMIP5-20c3m experiments, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 845–872, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-845-2011, 2011.
Wood, A. W., Maurer, E. P., Kumar, A., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Long-range experimental hydrologic forecasting for the eastern United States, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 4429, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000659, 2002.
Wood, A. W., Leung, L. R., Sridhar, V., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Hydrologic implications of dynamical and statistical approaches to downscaling climate model outputs, Climate Change, 62, 189–216, https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000013685.99609.9e, 2004.
Xiao-Ge, X., Tong-Wen, W., Jiang-Long, L., Zai-Zhi, W., Wei-Ping, L., and Fang-Hua, W.: How well does BCC-CSM1. 1 reproduce the 20th century climate change over China?, Atmos. Ocean. Sci. Lett., 6, 21–26, 2013.
Xing, W., Wang, W., Shao, Q., Peng, S., Yu, Z., Yong, B., and Taylor, J.: Changes of reference evapotranspiration in the Haihe River Basin: Present observations and future projection from climatic variables through multi-model ensemble, Global Planet. Change, 115, 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2014.01.004, 2014.
Xu, C. and Singh, V. P.: Evaluation and generalization of temperature-based methods for calculating evaporation, Hydrol. Process., 15, 305–319, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.119, 2001.
Xu, C. and Singh, V.: Cross comparison of empirical equations for calculating potential evapotranspiration with data from Switzerland, Water Resour. Manag., 16, 197–219, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020282515975, 2002.
Xu, C., Gong, L., Jiang, T., Chen, D., and Singh, V. P.: Analysis of spatial distribution and temporal trend of reference evapotranspiration and pan evaporation in Changjiang (Yangtze River) catchment, J. Hydrol., 327, 81–93, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.11.029, 2006.
Yukimoto, S., Adachi, Y., Hosaka, M., Sakami, T., Yoshimura, H., Hirabara, M., Tanaka, T. Y., Shindo, E., Tsujino, H., Deushi, M., Mizuta, R., Yabu, S., Obata, A., Nakano, H., Koshiro, T., Ose, T., and Kitoh, A.: A New Global Climate Model of the Meteorological Research Institute: MRI-CGCM3 -Model Description and Basic Performance, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 90A, 23–64, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2012-A02, 2012.
Zhao, L., Xia, J., Xu, C., Wang, Z., Sobkowiak, L., and Long, C.: Evapotranspiration estimation methods in hydrological models, J. Geogr. Sci., 23, 359–369, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-013-1015-9, 2013.
Short summary
Projecting water deficit depends on how researchers combine possible future climate scenarios such as general circulation models (GCMs), evapotranspiration estimation method (ET), and greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Using global sensitivity analysis, we found the relative contribution of each of these factors to projecting future water deficit and the choice of ET estimation method are as important as the choice of GCM, and greenhouse gas emission scenario is less influential than the others.
Projecting water deficit depends on how researchers combine possible future climate scenarios...
