Quantifying the uncertainty in future groundwater recharge simulations from regional climate models

This study aims to show how future groundwater recharge (GR) simulations in arid areas respond to uncertainty in climatic parameters—a question, if explored, that bridges a gap in water resources management plans. To this aim, eight regional climate models (RCMs) under two representative concentration pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5) projected four climatic parameters [surface air temperature, precipitation, wind speed, and potential evapotranspiration (PET)] over Qatar during the period of 2071–2100. Using topographic and groundwater data, a physically based water balance model was built to simulate future GR under these 16 scenarios. Results show high uncertainty in climatic parameters. Relative to the reference period (1976–2005), values varied under RCP4.5 (RCP8.5) from +1.8 to +3.4 (+3.8 to +5.6)°C for average temperature, −48% to +15% (−60% to +6%) for annual precipitation, −0.23 to +0.1 (−0.27 to +0.04) m/hour for wind speed, and from −5.7 to +12.8 (+4.3 to +17) mm for annual PET. Uncertainty in climatic parameters caused great uncertainty in future GR estimations. During the late 21st century, GR simulations varied from −67% to +64% with an average value of −20% under RCP4.5, and from −81% to +8% with an average value of −36% under RCP8.5. The greatest uncertainty resulted from the driving model, whereas the choice of emission scenario had a secondary impact. Since GR is a critical component of feeding arid aquifers, the study's findings emphasize the importance of both considering the uncertainty associated with climatic parameters and the regional climatic information chosen.

[1]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis , 2013 .

[2]  Sami G. Al‐Ghamdi,et al.  Evapotranspiration and water availability response to climate change in the Middle East and North Africa , 2021, Climatic Change.

[3]  H. Baalousha,et al.  A review on implementing managed aquifer recharge in the Middle East and North Africa region: methods, progress and challenges , 2021, Water International.

[4]  Sami G. Al‐Ghamdi,et al.  Seventy‐year disruption of seasons characteristics in the Arabian Peninsula , 2021, International Journal of Climatology.

[5]  Ping Wang,et al.  Variability in spatial–temporal recharge under the observed and projected climate: A site-specific simulation in the black soil region of Russia , 2020 .

[6]  S. Ahzi,et al.  Groundwater recharge estimation and its spatial distribution in arid regions using GIS: a case study from Qatar karst aquifer , 2018, Modeling Earth Systems and Environment.

[7]  Craig T. Simmons,et al.  Uncertainty of groundwater recharge estimated from a water and energy balance model , 2017, Journal of Hydrology.

[8]  C. Folberth,et al.  Uncertainty in soil data can outweigh climate impact signals in global crop yield simulations , 2016, Nature Communications.

[9]  H. Baalousha.  Using Monte Carlo simulation to estimate natural groundwater recharge in Qatar , 2016, Modeling Earth Systems and Environment.

[10]  G. Vandersteen,et al.  From streambed temperature measurements to spatial‐temporal flux quantification: using the LPML method to study groundwater–surface water interaction , 2016 .

[11]  B. Andreo,et al.  Review on groundwater recharge in carbonate aquifers from SW Mediterranean (Betic Cordillera, S Spain) , 2015, Environmental Earth Sciences.

[12]  K. Gebrehiwot,et al.  Application of a spatially distributed water balance model for assessing surface water and groundwater resources in the Geba basin, Tigray, Ethiopia , 2013 .

[13]  B. Kurylyk,et al.  The uncertainty associated with estimating future groundwater recharge: A summary of recent research and an example from a small unconfined aquifer in a northern humid-continental climate , 2013 .

[14]  I. Emelyanova,et al.  Potential climate change impacts on the water balance of regional unconfined aquifer systems in south-western Australia , 2012 .

[15]  Warrick Dawes,et al.  Differences in future recharge estimates due to GCMs, downscaling methods and hydrological models , 2011 .

[16]  C. Prudhomme,et al.  Modelling the effects of climate change and its uncertainty on UK Chalk groundwater resources from an ensemble of global climate model projections , 2011 .

[17]  Yonghui Yang,et al.  Impact of water resource exploitation on the hydrology and water storage in Baiyangdian Lake , 2010 .

[18]  Wenxi Lu,et al.  Impact of land use on distributed hydrological processes in the semi‐arid wetland ecosystem of Western Jilin , 2009 .

[19]  T. Hess,et al.  A comparison of stochastic and deterministic downscaling methods for modelling potential groundwater recharge under climate change in East Anglia, UK: implications for groundwater resource management , 2009 .

[20]  G. Priest,et al.  United States Department of the Interior GEOLOGICAL SURVEY , 2008 .

[21]  Juan B. Valdés,et al.  Modeling climate change impacts – and uncertainty – on the hydrology of a riparian system: The San Pedro Basin (Arizona/Sonora) , 2007 .

[22]  Lukas H. Meyer,et al.  Summary for Policymakers , 2022, The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

[23]  Okke Batelaan,et al.  GIS-based recharge estimation by coupling surface–subsurface water balances , 2007 .

[24]  George H. Hargreaves,et al.  Reference Crop Evapotranspiration from Temperature , 1985 .

[25]  R D Hoak,et al.  Water Resources , 1961, Nature.