Use of statistically and dynamically downscaled atmospheric model output for hydrologic simulations in three mountainous basins in the western United States

This paper examines the hydrologic model performance in three snowmelt-dominated basins in the western United States to dynamically- and statistically downscaled output from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction/National Center for Atmospheric Research Reanalysis (NCEP). Runoff produced using a distributed hydrologic model is compared using daily precipitation and maximum and minimum temperature timeseries derived from the following sources: (1) NCEP output (horizontal grid spacing of approximately 210 km); (2) dynamically downscaled (DDS) NCEP output using a Regional Climate Model (RegCM2, horizontal grid spacing of approximately 52 km); (3) statistically downscaled (SDS) NCEP output; (4) spatially averaged measured data used to calibrate the hydrologic model (Best-Sta) and (5) spatially averaged measured data derived from stations located within the area of the RegCM2 model output used for each basin, but excluding Best-Sta set (All-Sta). In all three basins the SDS-based simulations of daily runoff were as good as runoff produced using the Best-Sta timeseries. The NCEP, DDS, and All-Sta timeseries were able to capture the gross aspects of the seasonal cycles of precipitation and temperature. However, in all three basins, the NCEP-, DDS-, and All-Sta-based simulations of runoff showed little skill on a daily basis. When the precipitation and temperature biases were corrected in the NCEP, DDS, and All-Sta timeseries, the accuracy of the daily runoff simulations improved dramatically, but, with the exception of the biascorrected All-Sta data set, these simulations were never as accurate as the SDS-based simulations. This need for a bias correction may be somewhat troubling, but in the case of the large station-timeseries (All-Sta), the bias correction did indeed ‘correct’ for the change in scale. It is unknown if bias corrections to model output will be valid in a future climate. Future work is warranted to identify the causes for (and removal of) systematic biases in DDS simulations, and improve DDS simulations of daily variability in local climate. Until then, SDS based simulations of runoff appear to be the safer downscaling choice. Published by Elsevier B.V.

[1]  B. Briegleb.  Delta‐Eddington approximation for solar radiation in the NCAR community climate model , 1992 .

[2]  H. Diaz,et al.  Precipitation Trends and Water Consumption Related to Population in the Southwestern United States, 1930–83 , 1985 .

[3]  M. Clark,et al.  Hydrological responses to dynamically and statistically downscaled climate model output , 2000 .

[4]  M. Clark,et al.  Characteristics of the western United States snowpack from snowpack telemetry (SNOTEL) data , 1999 .

[5]  Linda O. Mearns,et al.  A Regional Model Study of the Importance of Local versus Remote Controls of the 1988 Drought and the 1993 Flood over the Central United States , 1996 .

[6]  J. Michaelsen.  Cross-Validation in Statistical Climate Forecast Models , 1987 .

[7]  M. Clark,et al.  Use of Regional Climate Model Output for Hydrologic Simulations , 2001 .

[8]  G. H. Leavesley,et al.  Precipitation-runoff modeling system; user's manual , 1983 .

[9]  Ann Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Biosphere-atmosphere transfer scheme(BATS) version 1e as coupled to the NCAR community climate model , 1993 .

[10]  C. Anderson,et al.  Precipitation Trends and Water Consumption Related to Population in the Southwestern United States: A Reassessment , 1995 .

[11]  Vijay P. Singh,et al.  The Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System - PRMS. , 1995 .

[12]  V. Singh,et al.  Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology , 1995 .

[13]  George H. Leavesley,et al.  A modular approach to addressing model design, scale, and parameter estimation issues in distributed hydrological modelling , 2002 .

[14]  James R. Anderson,et al.  A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data , 1976 .

[15]  G. Grell.  Prognostic evaluation of assumptions used by cumulus parameterizations , 1993 .

[16]  J. Nash,et al.  River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles☆ , 1970 .

[17]  R. Anthes,et al.  Simulations of Frontogenesis in a Moist Atmosphere Using Alternative Parameterizations of Condensation and Precipitation , 1984 .

[18]  S. McLaren,et al.  Linking climate change to land surface change , 2000 .

[19]  Robert L. Vislocky,et al.  An Automated, Observations-Based System for Short-Term Prediction of Ceiling and Visibility , 1997 .

[20]  C. S. Ramaoe.  Teleconnections and the siege of time , 1983 .

[21]  Renato Ramos da Silva,et al.  Project to Intercompare Regional Climate Simulations (PIRCS): Description and initial results , 1999 .

[22]  W. Collins,et al.  The NCEP–NCAR 50-Year Reanalysis: Monthly Means CD-ROM and Documentation , 2001 .

[23]  A. Holtslag,et al.  A High Resolution Air Mass Transformation Model for Short-Range Weather Forecasting , 1990 .

[24]  Mark S Antolik,et al.  An overview of the National Weather Service's centralized statistical quantitative precipitation forecasts , 2000 .

[25]  Daniel S. Wilks,et al.  Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences: An Introduction , 1995 .

[26]  M. Chelliah,et al.  Comparison of Tropospheric Temperatures Derived from the NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis, NCEP Operational Analysis, and the Microwave Sounding Unit , 1997 .