Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 153, Issue 3, pp 361–377 | Cite as

Bias correcting climate model multi-member ensembles to assess climate change impacts on hydrology

  • Jie ChenEmail author
  • François P. Brissette
  • Xunchang J. Zhang
  • Hua Chen
  • Shenglian Guo
  • Yan Zhao
Article

Abstract

Bias correction is usually applied to climate model outputs before they are used as inputs to environmental models for impact studies. Every climate model is post-processed independently of others to account for biases originating from model structure and internal variability. To better understand the role of internal variability, multi-member ensembles (multiple runs of a single climate model, with identical forcing but different initial conditions) have now become common in the modeling community. Bias correcting such ensembles requires specific considerations. Correcting all members of such an ensemble independently would force all of them to the target distribution, thus removing the signature of natural variability over the calibration period. How this undesirable effect would propagate onto subsequent time periods is unknown. This study proposes three bias correction variants of a multi-member ensemble and compares their performances against an independent correction of each individual member of the ensemble. The comparison is based on precipitation and temperature, as well as on resulting streamflows simulated by a hydrological model. Two multi-member ensembles (5-member CanESM2 and 10-member CSIRO-MK3.6) were used for a subtropical monsoon watershed in China. The results show that all bias correction methods reduce precipitation and temperature biases for all ensemble members. As expected, independent correction reduces the spread of each ensemble over the calibration period. This is, however, followed by an overestimation of the spread over the subsequent validation period. Pooling all members to calculate common bias correction factors produces the best results over the calibration period; however, the difference among three bias correction variants becomes less clear over the validation period due to internal variability, and even less so when considering streamflows, as the impact model adds its own uncertainty.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of the World Climate Research Program Working Group on Coupled Modelling, and climate modeling groups for making available their respective CanESM2 and CSIRO-MK3.6 outputs. The authors wish to thank the China Meteorological Data Sharing Service System and the Bureau of Hydrology of the Changjiang Water Resources Commission for providing datasets for the Hanjiang River watershed.

Funding information

This work was partially supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2017YFA0603704), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51779176, 51539009), the Overseas Expertise Introduction Project for Discipline Innovation (111 Project) funded by Ministry of Education and State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs P.R. China (Grant No. B18037), and the Thousand Youth Talents Plan from the Organization Department of CCP Central Committee (Wuhan University, China).

Supplementary material

10584_2019_2393_MOESM1_ESM.docx (442 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 441 kb)

References

  1. Arsenault R, Brissette F, Martel JL (2018) The hazards of split-sample validation in hydrological model calibration. J Hydrol 566:346–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arsenault R, Brissette F (2016) Multi-model averaging for continuous streamflow prediction in ungauged basins. Hydrol Sci J 61(13):2443–2454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arsenault, R., Essou, G.R.C., Brissette, F.P., 2015. Improving hydrological model simulations with combined multi-input and multimodel averaging frameworks. J Hydrol Eng 22(4): 04016066–04016061–11Google Scholar
  4. Arsenault R, Poulin A, Côté P, Brissette F (2013) Comparison of stochastic optimization algorithms in hydrological model calibration. J Hydrol Eng 19(7):1374–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen H, Xu C-Y, Guo SL (2012) Comparison and evaluation of multiple GCMs, statistical downscaling and hydrological models in the study of climate change impacts on runoff. J Hydrol 434–435:36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen J, Brissette FP, Lucas-Picher P (2015) Assessing the limits of bias correcting climate model outputs for climate change impact studies. J Geophys Res Atmos 120(3):1123–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen J, St-Denis BG, Brissette FP, Lucas-Picher P (2016) Using natural variability as a baseline to evaluate the performance of bias correction methods in hydrological climate change impact studies. J Hydrometeorol 17:2155–2174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen J, Brissette FP, Leconte R (2011) Uncertainty of downscaling method in quantifying the impact of climate change on hydrology. J Hydrol 401:190–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen J, Brissette FP, Chaumont D, Braun M (2013a) Performance and uncertainty evaluation of empirical downscaling methods in quantifying the climate change impacts on hydrology over two North American river basins. J Hydrol 479:200–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen J, Brissette FP, Chaumont D, Braun M (2013b) Finding appropriate bias correction methods in downscaling precipitation for hydrologic impact studies over North America. Water Resour Res 49:4187–4205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen J, Brissette FP, Chen H (2018) Using reanalysis-driven regional climate model outputs for hydrology modelling. Hydrol Process 32:3019–3031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen J, Brissette FP, Liu P, Xia J (2017) Using raw regional climate model outputs for quantifying climate change impacts on hydrology. Hydrol Process 31:4398–4413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen J, Brissette FP (2018) Reliability of climate model multi-member ensembles in estimating internal precipitation and temperature variability at the multi-decadal scale. Int J Climatol.  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5846
  14. Deser C, Knutti R, Solomon S, Phillips AS (2012b) Communication of the role of natural variability in future North American climate. Nat Clim Chang 2:775–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deser C, Phillips A, Bourdette V, Teng H (2012a) Uncertainty in climate change projections: the role of internal variability. Clim Dyn 38:527–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Essou GRC, Brissette FP (2013) Climate change impacts on the Ouémé River, Benin, West Africa. J Earth Sci Clim Change 4:161.  https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7617.1000161 Google Scholar
  17. Gleckler PJ, Taylor KE, Doutriaux C (2008) Performance metrics for climate models. J Geophys Res 113:D06104.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008972 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guo SL, Guo J, Zhang J, Chen H (2009) VIC distributed hydrological model to predict climate change impact in the Hanjiang basin. Sci China Ser E 52(11):3234–3239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hagemann S, Chen C, Haerter JO (2011) Impact of a statistical bias correction on the projected hydrological changes obtained from three GCMs and two hydrology models. J Hydrometeorol 12:556–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen N, Ostermeier A (2001) Completely derandomized self-adaptation in evolution strategies. Evol Comput 9(2):159–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kay J, Deser C, Phillips A et al (2015) The Community Earth System Model (CESM) large ensemble project: a community resource for studying climate change in the presence of internal climate variability. B Am Meteorol Soc 96(8):1333–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li C, Sinha E, Horton DE, Diffenbaugh NS, Michalak AM (2014) Joint bias correction of temperature and precipitation in climate model simulations. J Geophys Res Atmos 119:13,153–13,162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maraun D (2012) Nonstationarities of regional climate model biases in European seasonal mean temperature and precipitation sums. Geophys Res Lett 39:L06706.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martel J-L, Demeester K, Brissette F, Poulin A, Arsenault R (2017) HMETS—a simple and efficient hydrology model for teaching hydrological modelling, flow forecasting and climate change impacts. Int J Eng Educ 33(4):1307–1316Google Scholar
  25. Meehl GA et al (2009) Decadal prediction: can it be skillful? Bull Amer Meteor Soc 90:1467–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mehrotra R, Sharma A, Bari M, Tuteja N, Amirthanathan G (2014) An assessment of CMIP5 multi-model decadal hindcasts over Australia from a hydrological viewpoint. J Hydrol 519:2932–2951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mpelasoka FS, Chiew FHS (2009) Influence of rainfall scenario construction methods on runoff projections. J Hydrometeorol 10:1168–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Piani C, Haerter JO, Coppola E (2010) Statistical bias correction for daily precipitation in regional climate models over Europe. Theor Appl Climatol 99:187–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Risbey JS, Lewandowsky S, Langlais C, Monselesan DP, O’Kane TJ, Oreskes N (2014) Well-estimated global surface warming in climate projections selected for ENSO phase. Nat Clim Chang 4:835–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schmidli J, Frei C, Vidale PL (2006) Downscaling from GCM precipitation: a benchmark for dynamical and statistical downscaling methods. Int J Climatol 26:679–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shen, M., Chen, J., Zhuan, M., Chen. H., Xu, C.-Y., Xiong, L., 2018. Estimating uncertainty and its temporal variation related to global climate models in quantifying climate change impacts on hydrology. J Hydrol 556,10–24Google Scholar
  32. Solomon S (2007) Climate change 2007—the physical science basis: working group I contribution to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC, 4. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  33. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Amer Meteor Soc 93(4):485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Teutschbein C, Seibert J (2012) Bias correction of regional climate model simulations for hydrological climate-change impact studies: review and evaluation of different methods. J Hydrol 456–457:12–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Teutschbein C, Seibert J (2013) Is bias correction of regional climate model (RCM) simulations possible for non-stationary conditions? Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17:5061–5077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Themeßl MJ, Gobiet A, Heinrich G (2011) Empirical-statistical downscaling and error correction of regional climate models and its impact on the climate change signal. Clim Chang 112(2):449–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang YK, Wang D, Wu JC (2015) Assessing the impact of Danjiangkou reservoir on ecohydrological conditions in Hanjiang River, China. Ecol Eng 81:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wuebbles D, Meehl G, Hayhoe K et al (2014) CMIP5 climate model analyses: climate extremes in the United States. B Am Meteorol Soc 95:571–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhuan M-J, Chen J, Shen M-X, Xu C-Y, Chen H, Xiong L (2018) Timing of human-induced climate change emergence from internal climate variability for hydrological impact studies. Hydrol Res 49(2):421–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Water Resources & Hydropower Engineering ScienceWuhan UniversityWuhanChina
  2. 2.École de technologie supérieureUniversité du QuébecMontreal QCCanada
  3. 3.USDA-ARS, Grazinglands Research LaboratoryEl RenoUSA
  4. 4.Huaian Hydraulic Survey and Design Institute Co., Ltd.HuaianChina

Personalised recommendations