Impact of the spatial variability of daily precipitation on hydrological projections: A comparison of GCM‐ and RCM‐driven cases in the Han River basin, Korea. Issue 16 (15th May 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lee, Moon‐Hwan; Im, Eun‐Soon; Bae, Deg‐Hyo
• Is Part Of: Hydrological processes. Volume 33:Issue 16(2019)
• Page Start: 2240
• Page End: 2257
• Publication Date: 2019-05-15
• Subjects: climate change -- dynamical downscaling -- hydrological projection -- spatial variability of precipitation; Hydrology -- Periodicals; Hydrology -- Research -- Periodicals; Hydrologic models -- Periodicals; Hydrological forecasting -- Periodicals; 631.432
• DOI: 10.1002/hyp.13469
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0885-6087

Abstract

Abstract: In this study, we investigate the impact of the spatial variability of daily precipitation on hydrological projections based on a comparative assessment of streamflow simulations driven by a global climate model (GCM) and two regional climate models (RCMs). A total of 12 different climate input datasets, that is, the raw and bias‐corrected GCM and raw and bias‐corrected two RCMs for the reference and future periods, are fed to a semidistributed hydrological model to assess whether the bias correction using quantile mapping and dynamical downscaling using RCMs can improve streamflow simulation in the Han River basin, Korea. A statistical analysis of the daily precipitation demonstrates that the precipitation simulated by the GCM fails to capture the large variability of the observed daily precipitation, in which the spatial autocorrelation decreases sharply within a relatively short distance. However, the spatial variability of precipitation simulated by the two RCMs shows better agreement with the observations. After applying bias correction to the raw GCM and raw RCMs outputs, only a slight change is observed in the spatial variability, whereas an improvement is observed in the precipitation intensity. Intensified precipitation but with the same spatial variability of the raw output from the bias‐corrected GCM does not improve the heterogeneous runoff distributions, which in turn regulate unrealistically high peak downstream streamflow. GCM‐simulated precipitation with a large bias correction that is necessary to compensate for the poor performance in present climate simulation appears to distort streamflow patterns in the future projection, which leads to misleading projections of climate change impacts on hydrological extremes.