A Bayesian approach for multi-model downscaling: Seasonal forecasting of regional rainfall and river flows in South America

This study addresses three issues: spatial downscaling, calibration, and combination of seasonal predictions produced by different coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models. It examines the feasibility Of using a Bayesian procedure for producing combined, well-calibrated downscaled seasonal rainfall forecasts for two regions in South America and river flow forecasts for the Parana river in the south of Brazil and the Tocantins river in the north of Brazil. These forecasts are important for national electricity generation management and planning. A Bayesian procedure, referred to here as forecast assimilation, is used to combine and calibrate the rainfall predictions produced by three climate models. Forecast assimilation is able to improve the skill of 3-month lead November-December-January multi-model rainfall predictions over the two South American regions. Improvements are noted in forecast seasonal mean values and uncertainty estimates. River flow forecasts are less skilful than rainfall forecasts. This is partially because natural river flow is a derived quantity that is sensitive to hydrological as well as meteorological processes, and to human intervention in the form of reservoir management.

A comparative analysis of projected impacts of climate change on river runoff from global and catchment-scale hydrological models

We present a comparative analysis of projected impacts of climate change on river runoff from two types of distributed hydrological model, a global hydrological model (GHM) and catchment-scale hydrological models (CHM). Analyses are conducted for six catchments that are global in coverage and feature strong contrasts in spatial scale as well as climatic and development conditions. These include the Liard (Canada), Mekong (SE Asia), Okavango (SW Africa), Rio Grande (Brazil), Xiangu (China) and Harper's Brook (UK). A single GHM (Mac-PDM.09) is applied to all catchments whilst different CHMs are applied for each catchment. The CHMs typically simulate water resources impacts based on a more explicit representation of catchment water resources than that available from the GHM, and the CHMs include river routing. Simulations of average annual runoff, mean monthly runoff and high (Q5) and low (Q95) monthly runoff under baseline (1961-1990) and climate change scenarios are presented. We compare the simulated runoff response of each hydrological model to (1) prescribed increases in global mean temperature from the HadCM3 climate model and (2)a prescribed increase in global-mean temperature of 2oC for seven GCMs to explore response to climate model and structural uncertainty. We find that differences in projected changes of mean annual runoff between the two types of hydrological model can be substantial for a given GCM, and they are generally larger for indicators of high and low flow. However, they are relatively small in comparison to the range of projections across the seven GCMs. Hence, for the six catchments and seven GCMs we considered, climate model structural uncertainty is greater than the uncertainty associated with the type of hydrological model applied. Moreover, shifts in the seasonal cycle of runoff with climate change are presented similarly by both hydrological models, although for some catchments the monthly timing of high and low flows differs.This implies that for studies that seek to quantify and assess the role of climate model uncertainty on catchment-scale runoff, it may be equally as feasible to apply a GHM as it is to apply a CHM, especially when climate modelling uncertainty across the range of available GCMs is as large as it currently is. Whilst the GHM is able to represent the broad climate change signal that is represented by the CHMs, we find, however, that for some catchments there are differences between GHMs and CHMs in mean annual runoff due to differences in potential evaporation estimation methods, in the representation of the seasonality of runoff, and in the magnitude of changes in extreme monthly runoff, all of which have implications for future water management issues.