Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3966
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3966
03 Mar 2025
 | 03 Mar 2025
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).

Impact of bias adjustment strategy on ensemble projections of hydrological extremes

Paul C. Astagneau, Raul R. Wood, Mathieu Vrac, Sven Kotlarski, Pradeebane Vaittinada Ayar, Bastien François, and Manuela I. Brunner

Abstract. Hydrological climate change impact studies typically rely on hydrological projections generated by hydrological models driven with bias adjusted climate simulations. Such hydrological projections are influenced by internal climate variability, which can mask the emergence of robust climate trends. To account for this internal variability in climate projections, single model initial-condition large ensembles (SMILEs) can be employed. SMILEs are generated by running a single global/regional climate model many times with slightly perturbed initial conditions. However, it remains challenging to select an appropriate bias adjustment method for SMILEs used in hydrological impact studies because of the relative importance of inter-variable dependence and the preservation of both climate variability and change signal. To facilitate such selection, we here compare different bias adjustment methods applied to SMILEs and their effect on hydrological impact assessments. Specifically, we investigate how climate and hydrological extremes are changing for 87 catchments in the Swiss Alps when using (a) univariate vs. bivariate, (b) ensemble vs. individual-member, and (c) change-preserving vs. non-change-preserving bias adjustment methods. To do so, we adjust the biases of a 50-member SMILE with the different adjustment methods and drive a hydrological model to simulate and project high- and low-flows. Our comparison shows (1) no clear benefits from using bivariate instead of univariate bias adjustment methods when the SMILE already efficiently simulates the dependence between temperature and precipitation; (2) that the choice of using ensemble vs. individual-member and change-preserving vs. non-change-preserving bias adjustments leads to large differences in temperature, precipitation and streamflow signal-to-noise ratios and streamflow and precipitation time-of-emergence. These influences need to be considered when selecting an appropriate bias adjustment method for a given application. Based on our comparison, we generally recommend to apply change-preserving and ensemble bias adjustment methods in future hydrological impact studies using SMILEs.

Competing interests: Manuela Brunner is an associate Editor with HESS. The authors declare no other conflict of interests.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Share
Paul C. Astagneau, Raul R. Wood, Mathieu Vrac, Sven Kotlarski, Pradeebane Vaittinada Ayar, Bastien François, and Manuela I. Brunner

Status: open (until 22 Apr 2025)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Paul C. Astagneau, Raul R. Wood, Mathieu Vrac, Sven Kotlarski, Pradeebane Vaittinada Ayar, Bastien François, and Manuela I. Brunner
Paul C. Astagneau, Raul R. Wood, Mathieu Vrac, Sven Kotlarski, Pradeebane Vaittinada Ayar, Bastien François, and Manuela I. Brunner

Viewed

Total article views: 146 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
121 23 2 146 15 1 1
  • HTML: 121
  • PDF: 23
  • XML: 2
  • Total: 146
  • Supplement: 15
  • BibTeX: 1
  • EndNote: 1
Views and downloads (calculated since 03 Mar 2025)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 03 Mar 2025)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 141 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 141 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 22 Mar 2025
Download
Short summary
To study floods and droughts are likely to change in the future, we use climate projections from climate models. However, we first need to adjust the systematic biases of these projections at the catchment scale before using them in hydrological models. Our study compares statistical methods that can adjust these biases, but specifically for climate projections that enable a quantification of internal climate variability. We provide recommendations on the most appropriate methods.
Share