Potential Improvements To Statistical Downscaling of General Circulation Model Outputs To Catchment Streamflows With Downscaled Precipitation and Evaporation

ORIGINAL PAPER
Potential improvements to statistical downscaling of general

circulation model outputs to catchment streamflows
with downscaled precipitation and evaporation
D. A. Sachindra & F. Huang & A. Barton & B. J. C. Perera
Received: 12 December 2013 / Accepted: 18 September 2014
#Springer-Verlag Wien 2014
Abstract An existing streamflow downscaling model
(SDM
(original)
), was modified with the outputs of a precipitation
downscaling model (PDM) and an evaporation downscaling
model (EDM) as additional inputs, for improving streamflow
projections. For this purpose, lag 0, lag 1 and lag 2 outputs of
PDM were individually introduced to SDM
(original)
as additional
inputs, and then it was calibrated and validated. Performances of
the resulting modified models were assessed using Nash-
Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) during calibration and validation. It
was found that the use of lag 0 precipitation as an additional
input to SDM
(original)
improves NSE in calibration and valida-
tion. This modified streamflow downscaling model is called
SDM
(lag0_preci)
. Then lag 0, lag 1 and lag 2 evaporation of
EDM were individually introduced to SDM
(lag0_preci)
as addi-
tional inputs and it was calibrated and validated. The resulting
models showed signs of over-fitting in calibration and under-
fitting in validation. Hence, SDM
(lag0_preci)
was selected as the
best model. When SDM
(lag0_preci)
was run with observed lag 0
precipitation, a large improvement in NSE was seen. This
proved that if precipitation produced by the PDMcan accurately
reproduce the observations, improved precipitation predictions
will produce better streamflow predictions.
1 Introduction
General Circulation Models (GCMs) are considered as the
most widely used tools for projection of global climate into
the future (Bastola and Misra 2013). GCMs use the funda-
mentals of physics for describing the global climate. When
forced with plausible scenarios of future greenhouse gas
(GHG) concentrations, they are capable of projecting the
global climate hundreds of years into the future (Tripathi
et al. 2006). The spatial resolution of a current GCM is in
the order of a few hundred kilometres and GCMs are capable
of correctly simulating the global and continental climate.
However, since GCMs coarsely represent the topography
and land use, they are unable to correctly simulate the catch-
ment scale climate. Therefore, statistical and dynamic down-
scaling techniques are used for translating the coarse scale
information in the GCM outputs to catchment scale
hydroclimatic information (e.g. Hertig and Jacobeit (2008);
Can et al. (2011); Samadi et al. (2012); Flint and Flint
(2012)).
In dynamic downscaling, a Regional Climate Model
(RCM) is nested in a GCM for simulation of regional climate
(Murphy 1998). In this process, initial and lateral boundary
conditions to the RCM are provided by the GCM at multiple
vertical and horizontal levels (Wilby and Fowler 2011). In the
RCM, the information provided by the GCM is processed
using the fundamentals of physics of the atmosphere, and
hence regional patterns of climate variables are generated
(Rummukainen 2010). When the difference of the spatial
resolutions between the GCM and the RCM is high, multiple
nesting which involves downscaling starting from a larger
domain with coarser spatial resolution and progressively mi-
grating to smaller domains with finer spatial resolution (until
the desired spatial resolution is attained) is performed (Rojas
2006). RCMs are also to simulate the climate over a catchment
at a spatial resolution of a few kilometres (e.g. 550 km).
Dynamic downscaling techniques can produce spatially con-
tinuous fields of climatic variables while maintaining the
spatial coherence (Maurer et al. 2008). Since RCMs operate
at relatively higher spatial resolutions, the improved
D. A. Sachindra (*)
:
F. Huang
:
A. Barton
:
B. J. C. Perera
College of Engineering and Science, Victoria University, Footscray
Park Campus, P.O. Box 14428, Melbourne, Victoria 8001, Australia
e-mail: sachindra.dhanapalaarachchige@live.vu.edu.au
A. Barton
Federation University, PO Box 663, Ballarat, Victoria 3353,
Australia
Theor Appl Climatol
DOI 10.1007/s00704-014-1288-7
representation of topographic features such as mountains,
water bodies and other land use features aid in the simulation
of local climate more accurately (Rummukainen 2010;
Horvath et al. 2012). However, RCMs suffer from high com-
putational costs associated with their complex physics-based
structure (Haas and Pinto 2012). The computational cost of a
dynamic downscaling exercise largely increases with the spa-
tial resolution of the RCMand the extent of the domains (Qian
and Zubair 2010). Owing to the high computation costs asso-
ciated with dynamic downscaling, use of multiple GCMs and
GHG emission scenarios in a dynamic downscaling study
may not be always feasible. Also, the simulations produced
by a RCM during its spin-up period (time taken to attain
climate equilibrium) which can be in the order of a few
months or a few years (Denis et al. 2002) are discarded.
Statistical downscaling techniques are dependent on the
statistical relationships developed between the GCM outputs
and the catchment-scale hydroclimatic variables (Fowler et al.
2007). Owing to the simplicity, statistical downscaling tech-
niques are associated with much less computational costs
(Bedia et al. 2013). Statistical downscaling techniques can
be used to produce projections of hydroclimatic variables such
as streamflows, leaf wetness etc. which are not simulated by
GCMs. Also, unlike dynamic downscaling, statistical
met hods enabl e downscal i ng of GCM out put s t o
hydroclimatic variables at specific points in the catchment.
On the other hand, statistical downscaling techniques are not
able to produce spatially continuous fields of hydroclimatic
variables. For proper calibration and validation of a statistical
downscaling model, long series of observations are preferred.
This is because a long series of observations can possibly
expose the downscaling model to the full variance of the local
scale climate and make the downscaling model more robust
(Sachindra et al. 2014a). In statistical downscaling, it is as-
sumed that the statistical relationships determined between the
large-scale atmospheric variables (e.g. GCM outputs, reanal-
ysis outputs) and catchment scale climatic variables (e.g.
precipitation) for the past climate are also valid for the chang-
ing climate in the future (Benestad et al. 2008). This assump-
tion is similar to that of the validity of parameterisation
schemes in the RCMs for future climate. According to Wilby
et al. (2004), statistical downscaling techniques can be classi-
fied into three categories; (1) regression techniques (e.g.
Tareghian and Rasmussen 2013), (2) weather classification
techniques (e.g. Gutirrez et al. 2013) and (3) weather gener-
ation techniques (e.g. Wilks 1999). Regression based statisti-
cal downscaling techniques are regarded as the most widely
used statistical downscaling techniques (Nasseri et al. 2013).
Reliable forecasts of streamflows are useful in the manage-
ment of water resources in a catchment. These management
activities include flood control, water supply, hydroelectricity
generation and also the maintenance of environmental flows.
Therefore, it is realised that the projection of catchment scale
streamflows into the future under changing climate is of high
importance.
Landman et al. (2001) used bias-corrected moisture and
circulation outputs of a GCM in canonical correlation analysis
(CCA)-based statistical downscaling model for simulation of
seasonal streamflows at 12 locations in South Africa. Cannon
and Whitfield (2002) used multi-linear regression (MLR) and
artificial neural networks (ANN) for downscaling GCM out-
puts to 5-day average streamflows at 21 locations in Canada.
They used variables representative of the atmospheric circula-
tions at the Earths surface and the mid troposphere, tempera-
ture at lower troposphere and boundary layer moisture vari-
ables. In that study, it was commented that ANN was more
capable compared to MLR in downscaling GCM outputs to
streamflows. Hence, it was realised that non-linear techniques
are able to better capture the complex association between the
atmospheric variables and streamflows. Ghosh and Mujumdar
(2008) used support vector machine (SVM) and relevance
vector machine (RVM) regression techniques for downscaling
GCM outputs to monthly streamflows at a site in India. They
used principal component analysis (PCA) for derivation of PCs
from GCM outputs and applied fuzzy c-mean clustering to
classify the PCs into classes before introducing them to the
downscaling models. It was found that the RVM-based down-
scaling model was less prone to over-fitting unlike the SVM-
based downscaling model which suffered severe over-fitting.
Tisseuil et al. (2010) employed ANN, generalized additive
models, aggregated boosted trees and generalized linear models
for downscaling NCEP/NCAR reanalysis and GCM outputs to
daily streamflows, at 51 stations in France. In that study, using
hierarchical ascending cluster (HAC) analysis, predictor vari-
ables were separated into several clusters based on their simi-
larity, and then the first PCof each cluster was used as inputs to
the downscaling model. It was found that aggregated boosted
trees (non-linear technique) were more efficient in downscaling
large-scale atmospheric variables to streamflows. Sachindra
et al. (2013) used least square support vector machine regres-
sion (LS-SVM-R) and MLR to downscale NCEP/NCAR re-
analysis outputs to monthly streamflows at a station in north-
western Victoria, Australia. Unlike in the former streamflow
downscaling studies, they used soil moisture content as an
input to the downscaling model and found that it is highly
influential on streamflows. Furthermore they commented that
both LS-SVM-R and MLR produced very comparable perfor-
mances. However, both techniques were unable to simulate the
extremes of streamflow.
The main advantage of downscaling GCM outputs directly
to streamflows in a catchment is that it allows the quick
estimation of streamflows without the need of a hydrologic
model. However, direct downscaling of GCM outputs to
streamflows can only be used for simulation of unregulated
flows in a catchment. Since many complex hydrological pro-
cesses (e.g. infiltration) are not explicitly modelled in a direct
D.A. Sachindra et al.
streamflow downscaling exercise, errors to streamflow simu-
lations may be introduced.
Precipitation and evaporation are two highly influential
climatic variables on the availability of water resources in a
catchment. Precipitation is regarded as the main driver of
streamflow in many catchments. In past literature, there are
many case studies on downscaling GCM outputs to precipi-
tation at the catchment scale (e.g. Tripathi et al. (2006),
Anandhi et al. (2008), Timbal et al. (2009), Jeong et al.
(2012), Sachindra et al. (2014a)). Evaporation is one of the
many processes responsible for the loss of water from a
catchment. Some examples for downscaling GCM outputs
to evaporation are found in the studies of Timbal et al.
(2009), Yang et al. (2012), Goyal and Ojha (2012).
As stated earlier, Sachindra et al. (2013) detailed the de-
velopment of a statistical model for downscaling
NCEP/NCAR reanalysis outputs directly to monthly
streamflows at a location in north-western Victoria, Australia.
The current paper provides the details of further potential
improvements to that streamflowdownscaling model and also
the streamflow projections produced into the future using the
improved model. As stated previously, precipitation and evap-
oration are influential on the streamflows in a catchment. In
this study, outputs of downscaling models for precipitation
and evaporation at a station located close to the streamflow
site were used as additional inputs to the original streamflow
downscaling model, for improving its performances. The
performances of the newstreamflowdownscaling model were
compared with those of the original streamflow downscaling
model graphically and numerically. Following the improve-
ments to the streamflowdownscaling model, using the outputs
of HadCM3, ECHAM5 and GFDL2.0 pertaining to A2 and
B1 GHG emission scenarios, the streamflow at the site of
interest was projected into the future period 20002099.
Smith and Chandler (2010) stated that HadCM3, ECHAM5
and GFDL2.0 are capable in correctly simulating the precipita-
tion over Australia and also able to produce accurate simulations
of El Nio Southern Oscillation (ENSO). They also argued that
a GCM which can correctly simulate precipitation should be
able to simulate other climatic variables with a good degree of
accuracy. Therefore, for the present study, the outputs of
HadCM3, ECHAM5 and GFDL2.0 were used.
In this paper, Section 2 details the study area and the data
used in this study. Section 3 provides the details of the generic
methodology. The application of this methodology is de-
scribed in Section 4 with results. Finally, Section 5 presents
the summary of the study and conclusions.
2 Study area and data
The operational area of Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water
Corporation (GWMWater) is located in the north-western
region of Victoria, Australia. The streamflow site considered
in this study (same as in Sachindra et al. 2013) is located close
to the southern boundary of the operational area of
GWMWater. The projection of streamflow in the operational
area of GWMWater (about 62,000 km
2
) into the future is an
important task, as the water supply system located in this area
provides water to a large number of domestic and industrial
customers, and to the surrounding environment. Figure 1
shows the location of the streamflow site and its catchment
in the operational area of GWMWater.
The streamflow site (Lat. 37.17, Lon. 142.54) consid-
ered in this study is located on the Fyans Creek at Lake
Bellfield (refer to Fig. 1). In other words, this site represents
the inflow to Lake Bellfield (GWMWater 2011a). Lake
Bellfield provides water to nearby towns of Halls Gap and
Pomonal, and also many recreational activities such as swim-
ming, fishing and boating that take place at this lake. The
catchment area demarcated by this streamflow site is about
96 km
2
(GWMWater 2011a) and it is located within the
Grampians national park (GWMWater 2011b). Since the
catchment area is located within a national park, the land use
has remained stationary over the last few centuries and also it
is expected to remain constant in the future. The catchment of
Lake Bellfield contains soils composed of mainly sandstones
and some mudstones (Cayley and Taylor 1997). The inflowto
Lake Bellfield is usually of good quality with low salinity and
turbidity (Sachindra et al. 2013). The inflow to Lake Bellfield
provided by the Fyans Creek is influenced by some diversions
into the catchment and also some extractions out of it. The
unregulated inflow (naturalised) to Lake Bellfield have been
computed by Sinclair (2004). There is no weather observation
station located within the catchment of the Bellfield Lake. The
closest weather observation station at Halls Gap post office
(Lat. 37.14, Lon. 142.52), which is situated about 10 km
outside the boundary of the catchment, was selected as the
station representative of the climate of this catchment (refer to
Fig. 1).
In order to provide inputs to the statistical downscaling
models (precipitation, evaporation and streamflow) for their
calibration and validation, monthly reanalysis outputs of Na-
tional Centers for Environmental Predictions/National Center
for Atmospheric Research (NCEP/NCAR) were obtained
from the website of National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration/Earth System Research Laboratory
(NOAA/ESRL) Physical Sciences Division at http://www.
esrl.noaa.gov/psd/, for the period 19502010. For calibration
and validation of the precipitation and evaporation
downscaling models, observations of monthly precipitation
and evaporation of the station at Halls Gap post office were
obtained from the SILO database of Queensland Climate
Change Centre of Excellence at http://www.longpaddock.
qld.gov.au/silo/ for the period 19502010. For calibration
and validation of the streamflow downscaling model, the
Potential improvements to statistical downscaling of streamflows
unregulated monthly streamflow data of the site (inflow to
Lake Bellfield) considered in this study were obtained from
GWMWater for the period 19502010.
In order to identify the bias in the outputs of downscaling
models and for correction of bias, past observations of month-
ly precipitation, evaporation and streamflows have to be
reproduced. For this purpose, the twentieth century climate
experiment (20C3M) outputs of HadCM3, ECHAM5 and
GFDL2.0 were extracted from the website of the Programme
for Climate Model Diagnosis and Inter-comparison (PCMDI)
at https://esgcet.llnl.gov:8443/index.jsp, for the period 1950
1999. For validation of the bias-correction, HadCM3 outputs
for COMMIT GHG emission scenario were also obtained
from the same web site for the period 20002099.
For projection of precipitation and evaporation, and hence
streamflowinto the future, the outputs of HadCM3, ECHAM5
and GFDL2.0 pertaining to the A2 and B1 GHG emission
scenario were also obtained from the PCMDI (https://esgcet.
llnl.gov:8443/index.jsp), for the period 20002099.
3 Generic methodology
In this study, a statistical model that was developed for down-
scaling reanalysis outputs to monthly streamflows was mod-
ified for improving its performances. For this purpose, two
additional separate statistical downscaling models (one for
precipitation and the other for evaporation) were developed
with reanalysis outputs for downscaling them to monthly
precipitation and evaporation at a station which is located
close to the streamflow site. The outputs of these two down-
scaling models were introduced to the streamflow downscal-
ing model to enhance its performances. The development of
the original model for downscaling large-scale atmospheric
variables to monthly streamflows using the MLR technique
was detailed in Sachindra et al. (2013). This original
streamflow downscaling model is referred to as SDM
(original)
throughout this paper.
3.1 Downscaling models for precipitation and evaporation
Sachindra et al. (2014a) found that the MLR technique was
capable of successfully capturing the relationships between
the reanalysis outputs and precipitation observations. Hence,
in this study, downscaling models for monthly precipitation
and evaporation were built using the MLR technique. The
precipitation downscaling model and evaporation downscal-
ing model used in this study are referred to as PDM and EDM
throughout this paper. The procedure employed in this study
for the development of PDM and EDM was quite similar to
that used in developing SDM
(original)
using MLR. For extrac-
tion of large-scale climate information, the same atmospheric
domain used in the development of SDM
(original)
was selected.
Fig. 1 Streamflow site and its
catchment within operational area
of GWMWater
Two pools of probable predictors were selected for PDM
and EDM by considering the past literature and fundamentals
of hydrology. These probable predictors were the variables
that are likely to influence precipitation and evaporation.
Potential predictors are the subsets of probable predictors
which highly influence the predictand of interest. The poten-
tial predictors were extracted from the pools of probable
predictors for each calendar month for each predictand sepa-
rately. This was performed because the set of predictors influ-
ential on a certain predictand can vary with the seasonal
changes in the atmosphere (Karl et al. 1990).
To extract potential predictors from the pools of probable
predictors, the Pearson correlation coefficient (Pearson 1895)
was used. For each predictand, the record of observations and
the reanalysis data pertaining to the probable predictors were
split into 20-year time slices. Then the Pearson correlation
coefficients between the observations of the predictand of
interest and the reanalysis data pertaining to probable predic-
tors were computed for all 20-year time slices and the whole
period of the records. This procedure was performed at each
grid point in the atmospheric domain and for each calendar
month separately. The probable predictors which showed
statistically significant (p0.05) good correlations with the
observations in all time slices and the whole period of the
study were selected as the potential predictors for each calen-
dar month for each predictand.
The first two thirds of the observations of each predictand
and the reanalysis data pertaining to the potential predictors,
for each calendar month, were allocated for calibration of the
downscaling models. The rest of these data sets were used for
validation of the downscaling models. The reanalysis data for
both calibration and validation phases of the downscaling
models were standardised with their means and the standard
deviations corresponding to the calibration period. Initially,
the standardised reanalysis data of the potential predictor
which showed the best correlation with the observations of
the predictand over the whole period of the study was intro-
duced to the downscaling model. Then, by minimising the
sum of squared errors between the model outputs (e.g. pre-
cipitation) and the observations, the optimum values of the
coefficient and the constant of the linear regression equation
were determined. The downscaling model was then validated
by introducing the rest of the reanalysis data of that potential
predictor to the model. During the validation, the optimum
values of the coefficient and the constant determined in the
calibration phase of the downscaling model were kept con-
stant. The model performances in the calibration and valida-
tion phases were measured using the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency
(NSE) (Nash and Sutcliffe 1970). Thereafter, the next best
potential predictors were introduced to the downscaling mod-
el, one at a time, and the model calibration and validation were
performed as stated previously. This stepwise addition of
potential predictors was continued until the model
performance in validation reached a maximum in terms of
the NSE. The maximum performance in the validation was
considered in selecting the best model for each calendar
month for each predictand, as it aided in avoiding any models
which displayed over-fitting in calibration and under-fitting in
validation. This procedure yielded the best sets of potential
predictors and the optimum downscaling models for each
calendar month of each predictand. Note that all downscaling
models detailed in this paper had common calibration and
validation periods.
3.2 Potential improvements to streamflowdownscaling model
Initially, the precipitation and evaporation outputs of the PDM
and the EDM pertaining to both calibration and validation
phases of the models were standardised for each calendar
month using the means and the standard deviations of the
observations of the calibration period. Then, for each calendar
month, the standardised lag 0 precipitation output of the PDM
pertaining to its calibration phase was introduced to the
SDM
(original)
. Following the introduction of the standardised
lag 0 precipitation, this model was calibrated, and the opti-
mum values for its parameters (coefficients and constants of
MLR equations) were found for each calendar month. The
SDM
(original)
modified with lag 0 precipitation is called
SDM
(lag0_preci)
. In the validation of SDM
(lag0_preci)
, the opti-
mum values of the constants and the coefficients of MLR
equations determined in the calibration phase of
SDM
(lag0_preci)
were kept fixed. Then, the standardised lag 0
precipitation outputs of the PDM pertaining to the validation
phase were introduced to SDM
(lag0_preci)
for reproducing the
observed streamflow for that period. The performance of
SDM
(lag0_preci)
was monitored using the NSE and scatter plots
in the calibration and validation phases.
Similarly, SDM
(original)
was again calibrated and validated
by separately introducing the standardised lag 1 and lag 2
precipitation outputs of the PDM, yielding modified
streamflow downscaling models SDM
(lag1_preci)
and
SDM
(lag2_preci)
, respectively. Then, considering the NSEs in
validation, the best model out of SDM
( l ag0_pr eci )
,
SDM
(lag1_preci)
and SDM
(lag2_preci)
was selected for the next
step of the model improvement. This best model is called
SDM
(lagi_preci)
.
In the next step, SDM
(lagi_preci)
was further modified by
individually introducing the standardised lag 0, lag 1 and lag 2
evaporation outputs of the EDM pertaining to the calibration
phase. This yielded SDM
(lagi_preci_
&
_lag0_evap)
(i.e. SDM
(lagi_-
preci)
with lag 0 evaporation), SDM
(lagi_preci_
&
_lag1_evap)
(i.e.
SDM
(lagi_preci)
with lag 1 evaporation) and SDM
(lagi_-
preci_
&
_lag2_evap)
(i.e. SDM
(lagi_preci)
with lag 2 evaporation).
The optimum values of the coefficients and constants of MLR
equations were found for each calendar month in the calibra-
tion of above models, and then they were validated using the
standardised lag 0, lag 1 and lag 2 evaporation outputs of the
EDM pertaining to the validation phase as described previ-
ously. The performances of these three SDMs were monitored
using NSE and scatter plots, in their calibration and validation
phases. The best SDM was selected based on the NSE in the
validation phase. This best model is referred to as SDM
(lagi_-
preci_
&
_lagj_evap)
, where i and j refer to lags of precipitation and
evaporation. The above stepwise modification process applied
to SDM
(original)
is graphically illustrated in Fig. 2.
Another SDM was developed (calibrated and validated) by
introducing observed lag i precipitation and lag j evaporation
to SDM
(original)
corresponding to the best SDM identified
previously. The lags i and j refer to lags of precipitation and
evaporation used in the best SDM. This downscaling model
developed using the observed lag i precipitation and lag j
evaporation as additional inputs to SDM
(original)
is called
SDM
(original+OBS)
. It allowed the quantification of the maxi-
mum potential improvement to SDM
(original)
with observa-
tions of precipitation and evaporation. Numerical and graph-
ical performance comparisons between the SDM
(original)
,
SDM
(lagi_preci_
&
_lagj_evap)
and SDM
(original+OBS)
were per-
formed. This enabled the quantification of the actual and
potential improvements to SDM
(original)
following the modifi-
cations made in this study.
3.3 Reproduction of precipitation, evaporation and hence
streamflow using GCM outputs and bias-correction
Once the PDM and the EDM were developed, they were run
with the 20C3M outputs of each GCM. For this purpose, the
20C3M outputs of each GCM corresponding to potential
predictors used in the PDM and EDM were standardised with
the means and the standard deviations of reanalysis data
relevant to the calibration phase of the downscaling models.
The reproduction of precipitation and evaporation using the
20C3M outputs of each GCM enabled the quantification of
bias introduced to precipitation and evaporation simulations
by each GCM and its subsequent correction. Once precipita-
tion and evaporation observations for the past were
reproduced by the PDM and the EDM using 20C3M outputs
of the GCMs, the statistics of reproduced precipitation and
evaporation were compared with those of observations for the
quantification of bias. Then, the equidistant quantile mapping
(EQM) technique (Li et al. 2010) was used to correct the bias
in precipitation and evaporation reproduced by PDM and
EDM.
For the application of the EQM technique, empirical cu-
mulative distribution functions (CDFs) were derived from the
outputs of PDM and EDM pertaining to the past climate
(using 20C3M outputs of each GCM) and also from the
precipitation and evaporation observations, for each calendar
month separately. Then, for each calendar month, the CDFs
derived from the outputs of PDM and EDM for the past
climate were mapped onto the CDFs developed from the
precipitation and evaporation observations respectively. In
this mapping process, first, for a given value of the predictand
of interest (e.g. precipitation) downscaled by the model (e.g.
PDM), the corresponding CDF value was found from the
CDF derived from the values of that predictand of interest
downscaled by the model. Then pertaining to that CDF value,
the value of the predictand of interest was found fromthe CDF
derived from the past observations. This value of the
predictand of interest obtained from the CDF derived from
the past observations is the bias-corrected value of the
predictand downscaled by the model. The above process
was applied to all values of the predictand of interest down-
scaled by the model and it yielded the bias-corrected CDF.
The application of the EQM technique allowed the correction
of bias in all statistical moments of precipitation and evapo-
ration downscaled by the PDM and the EDM for the past
climate with GCMoutputs. Adetailed application of the EQM
technique is found in Li et al. (2010), Salvi et al. (2011) and
Sachindra et al. (2014b).
The time series of precipitation and evaporation were de-
rived from their bias-corrected CDFs and for each calendar
month precipitation and evaporation data were standardised
using the means and the standard deviations of their observa-
tions relevant to the calibration period of the downscaling
model. The 20C3M data relevant to the potential predictors
used in the SDM
(original)
were also standardised with the
means and the standard deviations of reanalysis data of the
calibration phase of the downscaling models. Then, the
SDM
(lagi_preci_
&
_lagj_evap)
was run with the bias-corrected out-
puts of the PDM and the EDM produced in the above step
along with 20C3M outputs of each GCM pertaining to the
inputs to SDM
(original)
. The EQM technique was used to
correct the bias in the streamflow downscaled by SDM
(lagi_-
preci_
&
_lagj_evap)
, run with the bias-corrected outputs of the
PDM and the EDM along with 20C3M outputs of each
SDM
(original)
SDM
(lagi_preci)
Select best model
Lag i (i = 0, 1, 2)
precipitation
SDM
(lagi_preci_&_lagj_evapo)
Lag j (j = 0, 1, 2)
evaporation
Select best model
Fig. 2 Flow chart for
modification of SDM
(original)
GCM. For this purpose, the same procedure used for the
correction of bias in the outputs of PDM and EDM was
employed.
For validating the performances of the EQM technique for
precipitation and evaporation, statistics of bias-corrected pre-
cipitation and evaporation downscaled using the outputs of a
GCM pertaining to the COMMIT GHG emission scenario for
the future climate were compared with those of observed
precipitation and evaporation. For validating the performances
of the EQM technique for streamflow, statistics of bias-
corrected streamflow downscaled using the outputs of the
GCM and the bias-corrected precipitation and evaporation
relevant to the COMMIT GHG emission scenario were com-
pared with those of observed streamflow. The COMMIT
GHGemission scenario assumes that the GHG concentrations
observed at the end of the twentieth century (CO
2
concentra-
tion in the atmosphere370 ppm) will remain the same
throughout the twenty-first century. Assuming that the rise
in the GHG concentrations in the atmosphere in the latter half
of the twentieth century is small, it can be argued that the
climate simulated by a GCM over the latter half of the twen-
tieth century is in close agreement with the climate projected
into the future by the same GCM under the COMMIT GHG
emission scenario (argument proven by Sachindra et al.
(2014b)).
The GCM outputs pertaining to the COMMIT GHG emis-
sion scenario were standardised using the means and the
standard deviations of reanalysis outputs. Then, PDM and
EDM were run with the COMMIT GHG emission scenario
outputs of the GCM. Thereafter, the empirical CDFs were
derived from the precipitation and evaporation time series
projected into the future under the COMMIT GHG emission
scenario. Then for each calendar month, the difference be-
tween the CDF of the predictand of interest (precipitation or
evaporation) produced into the future under the COMMIT
GHG emission scenario and the CDF simulated for the past
corresponding to 20C3M was added to the CDF of the obser-
vations of the predictand. This process yielded the bias-
corrected CDFs of precipitation and evaporation for the future
climate characterised by the COMMIT scenario. Following
this bias-correction, for the validation of the EQM technique,
the statistics of precipitation and evaporation downscaled
from GCM outputs for COMMIT GHG emission scenario
were compared with those of past observations.
The bias-corrected time series of precipitation and evapo-
ration were standardised with the means and the standard
deviations of observations relevant to the model calibration
period for each calendar month. The GCM outputs of the
COMMIT GHG emission scenario for SDM
(lagi_preci_
&
_lagj_-
evap)
were also standardised with the corresponding means and
standard deviations of reanalysis outputs of the model calibra-
tion period for each calendar month. Then, SDM
(lagi_-
preci_
&
_lagj_evap)
was run with these bias-corrected outputs of
the PDM and the EDM and the GCM outputs of COMMIT
GHG emission scenario. The streamflow produced in the
above step was bias-corrected using the EQM technique,
following the same procedure used for the correction of bias
in precipitation and evaporation produced by the downscaling
model for the COMMIT GHG emission scenario. Then, the
statistics of bias-corrected streamflow produced by SDM
(lagi_-
preci_
&
_lagj_evap)
for the COMMIT GHG emission scenario
were compared with those of past observed streamflow. This
comparison of statistics enabled the assessment of effective-
ness of the EQM technique (or validation of EQM) in
correcting the bias in streamflow projections.
Figure 3 shows the main steps involved in the application
and validation of the bias-correction for precipitation, evapo-
ration and streamflows in a flow chart. In that flow chart, the
steps shown above the dashed line (in dark printblack) refer
to the application of the bias-correction to precipitation, evap-
oration and streamflows for the past climate. The steps shown
below the dashed line (in light printblue) refer to the vali-
dation of the bias-correction with COMMIT GHG emission
scenario and the same set of steps were followed for the bias-
correction of projections of precipitation, evaporation and
streamflows produced into the future with another GHGemis-
sion scenario (e.g. A2) as described in the next section.
3.4 Projection of precipitation, evaporation and hence
streamflow into the future, and bias-correction
The outputs of each GCM for the PDM and EDM pertaining to
future climate (e.g. A2, B1 GHG emission scenario) were
standardised using the corresponding means and standard devi-
ations of reanalysis outputs relevant to the model calibration
period for each calendar month. Then, the PDM and the EDM
were run with these standardised outputs of each GCM for the
future climate. Following the procedure described in Section 3.3
used for the validation of effectiveness of the EQM technique
(refer to Fig. 3), it was used to correct the bias in the precipitation
and evaporation projected into the future. The bias-corrected
time series of precipitation and evaporation for future were
standardised with the means and the standard deviations of
observations relevant to the model calibration period for each
calendar month. The outputs of each GCM for the SDM
(lagi_-
preci_
&
_lagj_evap)
for future climate were standardised using the
corresponding means and standard deviations of reanalysis out-
puts relevant to the model calibration period.
The bias-corrected standardised outputs of PDM and EDM
for future climate along with other standardised outputs of each
GCM were introduced to SDM
(lagi_preci_
&
_lagj_evap)
for the
projection of streamflow at the point of interest into the future.
This procedure was performed for each calendar month sepa-
rately. Following the same procedure used in correcting the bias
in the projections of precipitation and evaporation for the
COMMIT GHG scenario (refer to Section 3.3), bias in the
streamflow projected into the future by SDM
(lagi_preci_
&
_lagj_-
evap)
was corrected using the EQM technique. Then, the sea-
sonal statistics of observed streamflow were compared with
those of streamflow projected into the future. Also, the ensem-
ble average streamflow time series was computed from the
streamflow outputs of SDM
(lagi_preci_
&
_lagj_evap)
when it was
run with the outputs of each GCMand the outputs of PDMand
EDM. The probability exceedance curves for projected ensem-
ble average streamflow and observed streamflows were com-
pared for each season for the assessment of possible changes in
the streamflow regime in the future.
4 Application
4.1 Downscaling models for precipitation and evaporation
4.1.1 Domain and predictor selection for downscaling models
Before developing the downscaling models, an atmospheric
domain spanning over the study area was defined. This atmo-
spheric domain spanned over the longitudes 135150 E and
latitudes 3042.5 S. It included seven and six grid points in
the longitudinal and latitudinal direction respectively. The
PDM/EDM
20C3M GCM
outputs
Application
of EQM to
correct bias
SDM
(lag0_preci)
20C3M GCM
outputs
CDF of
precipitation/
evaporation for past
climate
Bias-corrected CDF of
precipitation/
climate
CDF of
streamflow for
past climate
streamflow for past
climate
Application
of EQM to
correct bias
Bias-corrected time
series of precipitation/
climate
PDM/EDM
COMMIT GCM
outputs/any future
scenario
Application
of EQM to
correct bias
SDM
(lag0_preci)
COMMIT GCM
outputs/any future
scenario
CDF of precipitation/
evaporation for
COMMIT/any future
scenario
precipitation/evaporation for
COMMIT/any future scenario
CDF of streamflow
for COMMIT/ any
future scenario
streamflow for
COMMIT/ any future
scenario
Application
of EQM to
correct bias
Bias-corrected time
series of precipitation/
evaporation for
COMMIT/any future
scenario
Difference between
two CDFs (past and future) Bias-corrected time
series of streamflow
for past climate
CDF of observed
precipitation/
climate
CDF of observed
streamflow for past
climate
Difference
between two
CDFs
Bias-corrected time
series of streamflow
for COMMIT/ any
future scenario
Application of bias-
correction
Validation of bias-
correction
Fig. 3 Main steps involved in
application and validation of bias-
correction
spatial resolution of the atmospheric domain was selected as
2.5 in both directions in order to be consistent with the spatial
resolution of NCEP/NCAR reanalysis outputs. This atmo-
spheric domain is shown in Fig. 4.
The predictor selection, the calibration and validation, the
bias-correction and the projection of precipitation into the
future using a precipitation downscaling model at the Halls
Gap post office was detailed in the studies by Sachindra et al.
(2014a, b). That precipitation downscaling model was used in
the current study as the PDM. Therefore, for more details
about the PDM used in this study, readers are referred to
Sachindra et al. (2014a, b). The details on the EDMdeveloped
in this study are provided in this section.
Once the atmospheric domain was defined, a pool of prob-
able predictors for evaporation was selected. Timbal et al.
(2009) used meteorological analogues for downscaling
GCM outputs to daily precipitation, pan evaporation, mini-
mum temperature, maximum temperatureand dew point tem-
perature over the southern half of Australia. Since the present
study area is also located in the southern region of Australia,
the predictors used in that study for downscaling evaporation
were also used in the present study.
The NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data pertaining to the probable
predictors and the observations of evaporation at the Halls Gap
post office for the period 19502010 were split into three time
slices; 19501969, 19701989 and 19902010. Following the
procedure detailed in Section 3.1, potential predictors for evap-
oration for each calendar month were identified fromthe pool of
probable predictors. Then, the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data
pertaining to the potential predictors and the observations of
evaporation were separated into two chronological groups;
19501989, 19902010. The former group of data was used
for the calibration, while the latter group was used for the
validation of the downscaling model. As described in Sec-
tion 3.1, the MLR-based statistical downscaling models were
developed for each calendar month for evaporation, and the best
sets of potential variables were identified. The same procedure
was practised by Sachindra et al. (2013, 2014a) in developing
the SDM
(original)
and PDM, respectively. The best sets of poten-
tial predictors identified for precipitation and evaporation for
each calendar month are shown in Table 1.
Table 2 shows the best sets of potential predictors used in
SDM
(original)
for each calendar month with their gird locations.
Note that in December, volumetric moisture content in soil layer
10200 cm at grid points (4,3) and (4,4) used as inputs to
SDM
(original)
were removed from the set of input. This was
because the volumetric moisture content in soil layer 10
200 cm at grid points (4,3) and (4,4) simulated by HadCM3
indicated presence of large bias in its variance (in comparison to
NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data). SDM
(original)
was re-calibrated
and validated only for December without the volumetric mois-
ture content in soil layer 10200 cmat grid points (4,3) and (4,4),
and it was found that the removal of the above two variables
from the model does not change its performance significantly.
4.1.2 Performances of precipitation and evaporation
downscaling models
The performances of the PDM and the EDM were monitored
during their calibration and validation periods using statistical
Fig. 4 Atmospheric domain for
downscaling
and graphical techniques. Table 3 shows the statistics of the
observed and EDMreproduced evaporation for the calibration
and validation period. Performances of PDM were detailed in
Sachindra et al. (2014b, c).
According to Table 3, it was seen that the EDM was able to
reproduce the statistics of observed evaporation with good degree
of accuracy in both calibration and validation periods. EDM
showed NSEs of 0.97 and 0.98 in its calibration and validation
periods respectively, and PDM displayed NSEs of 0.74 and 0.70
for the same periods (Sachindra et al. 2014b). In general,
precipitation shows high levels of fluctuations than evaporation
(which usually displays smooth regular variations over time).
This allows downscaling large-scale atmospheric variables to
evaporation with higher degree of accuracy in comparison to
precipitation. Overall, both PDM and EDM showed good per-
formances in the calibration and validation phases.
4.2 Potential improvements to streamflowdownscaling model
As described in Section 3.2, the SDM
(original)
was modified
using the precipitation and evaporation reproduced by PDM
Table 1 Best sets of potential predictors for each calendar month of PDM and EDM
Month Potential variables used in the PDM and EDM with grid locations
Precipitation Evaporation
January Surface precipitation rate {(3,3),(4,4)} 1000 hPa air temperature {(3,4)}
1000 hPa specific humidity {(3,3),(3,4),(4,4)}
850 hPa meridional wind {(2,6),(3,5),(3,6)}
850 hPa relative humidity {(1,2)}
2 m specific humidity {(3,3),(3,4)}
February Surface precipitation rate {(3,4),(4,4),(4,5)} 1000 hPa relative humidity {(3,3),(4,4)}
925 hPa relative humidity {(3,3),(3,4),(4,4),(4,5)}
March Surface precipitation rate {(3,3),(3,4),(3,5),(4,3),(4,4),(4,5),(4,6)} 1000 hPa air temperature {(2,5)}
April 850 hPa relative humidity {(4,3),(4,4)} 925 hPa relative humidity {(2,1)}
Surface precipitation rate {(4,3)}
May Surface precipitation rate {(4,4),(5,5)} 1000 hPa relative humidity {(4,4)}
850 hPa geopotential height {(4,3)}
June Surface precipitation rate {(3,2),(3,3),(4,2),(4,3),(4,4),(4,5)} 1000 hPa relative humidity {(4,4)}
Mean sea level pressure {(4,3),(5,3)}
850 hPa zonal wind {(2,4)}
Surface pressure {(4,3),(5,3),(5,4)}
July 850 hPa zonal wind {(1,3),(1,4)} 1000 hPa relative humidity {(2,2),(2,3),(3,4)}
850 hPa geopotential height {(4,3),(4,4),(4,5)} 925 hPa relative humidity {(2,3),(3,4)}
Surface precipitation rate {(1,4),(1,5),(1,6),(2,5)}
August Surface precipitation rate {(4,3),(5,4),(5,5)} 1000 hPa relative humidity {(3,1)}
925 hPa relative humidity {(2,3),(3,3)}
September Surface precipitation rate {(2,1),(2,2),(3,2),(3,3), (3,5),(4,2),(4,3),(4,4),(4,5)} 1000 hPa relative humidity {(2,2),(3,2),(3,3)}
October Surface precipitation rate {(3,2),(4,2),(4,3),(4,4)} 700 hPa geopotential height {(1,1)}
November 850 hPa relative humidity {(3,2),(3,3)} 850 hPa air temperature {(2,5),(3,5)}
Surface precipitation rate {(4,3),(4,5)} 700 hPa geopotential height {(2,3),(2,4),(2,5)}
December Surface precipitation rate {(2,1),(3,2),(4,3),(4,4),(5,5)} 1000 hPa air temperature {(2,2)}
850 hPa relative humidity {(3,2)} 925 hPa relative humidity {(3,2)}
Surface skin temperature {(2,1),(2,2),(2,3),(3,5)}
The locations are given within brackets (see Fig. 1)
hPa atmospheric pressure in hectopascal
and EDM. Table 4 provides the statistics of observed and
model simulated streamflows for the calibration and
validation periods before and after the modification of
SDM
(original)
. As can be seen from Table 4, when the
SDM
(original)
was modified using the lag 0 and lag 1 precipi-
tation produced by the PDM, NSEs in both calibration and
validation period increased equally (refer to SDM
(lag0_preci)
and SDM
(lag1_preci)
in Table 4). However, when lag 2 precip-
itation was introduced to SDM
(original)
, the model performance
in terms of NSE increased in calibration, but decreased in
validation. This indicated that with the introduction of lag 2
precipitation, SDM
(lag2_preci)
tends to show signs of over-
fitting in calibration and under-fitting in validation. Consider-
ing the improvement in NSE in validation, SDM
(lag0_preci)
was
selected for further modification with evaporation produced
by the EDM. After the modification of SDM
(lag0_preci)
with lag
0, lag 1 and lag 2 evaporation, Table 4 shows that further
improvement to this model was not possible. Furthermore,
when lag 0 and lag 1 precipitation together, lag 0, lag 1 and lag
2 precipitation together, lag 1 precipitation and lag 0 evapo-
ration together, lag 1 precipitation and lag 1 evaporation
together and lag 1 precipitation and lag 0 and lag 1 evapora-
tion together were used as additional inputs to SDM
(original)
, no
further improvement to the model was seen. Hence
SDM
(lag0_preci)
was selected as the best streamflow downscal-
ing model.
As seen in Table 2, for SDM
(original)
, in all seasons
volumetric soil moisture content and humidity variables
(relative or specific humidity at different pressure levels)
have been selected as best potential variables. The rate of
evaporation from a catchment is dependent on factors such
as: wind speeds, air temperature, atmospheric humidity,
sunshine hours (Wang et al. 2012) and also the soil mois-
ture content (Shang et al. 2007). Therefore, it can be
argued that the inclusion of variables representative of
atmospheric humidity and soil moisture content in the
downscaling model can compensate the exclusion of evap-
oration to a certain degree.
In Table 4, it was seen that with the introduction of lag zero
evaporation to SDM
(lag0_preci)
, the performance of the
SDM
(lag0_preci_
&
_lag0_evap)
in terms of NSE does not show
any significant change. In fact, with the introduction of lag
zero evaporation the performance of SDM
(lag0_preci_
&
_lag0_evap)
in terms of NSE has slightly increased in model calibration
period and slightly decreased in model validation period with
respect to that of SDM
(lag0_preci)
. The SDM
(lag0_preci)
already
contains atmospheric humidity and soil moisture variables (see
Table 2) which can indirectly explain the influence of evapo-
ration on streamflow. Therefore, when evaporation is intro-
duced to SDM
(lag0_preci)
it brings redundant information to the
model. This redundant information fed into the model does not
cause any significant improvement to the model performance.
In other words, the inclusion of evaporation in the
SDM
(lag0_preci)
does not lead to any significant improvement
in model performance.
Table 2 Best sets of potential predictors for each calendar month of
SDM
(original)
Month Potential variables used for MLR model with grid locations
January 1000 hPa relative humidity {(1,2),(2,2),(2,3),(3,4)}
February Volumetric soil moisture content 010 cm {(4,3)}
Volumetric soil moisture content 10200 cm
{(2,2),(3,1),(3,2)}
March 1000 hPa relative humidity {(5,6),(6,6),(6,7)}
April 700 hPa relative humidity {(4,2),(4,3)}
May Volumetric soil moisture content 010 cm {(4,3),(4,4),(4,5)}
June Volumetric soil moisture content 010 cm
{(4,3),(4,4),(5,2),(5,3),(5,4),(6,3)}
July 700 hPa geopotential height {(4,4)}
850 hPa geopotential height {(4,3),(4,4),(4,5)}
August 700 hPa geopotential height {(5,4),(5,5)}
850 hPa geopotential height {(5,4),(5,5),(5,6)}
September 700 hPa geopotential height {(2,1),(3,2),(3,3)}
October Volumetric soil moisture content 010 cm {(4,3),(4,4),(5,3)}
November 700 hPa geopotential height
{(2,2),(2,3),(2,4),(3,2),(3,3),(3,4)}
December 700 hPa relative humidity {(4,3)}
850 hPa specific humidity {(5,5)}
Volumetric soil moisture content 010 cm {(4,4),(4,5),(5,4)}
Volumetric soil moisture content 10200 cm
{(3,2),(4,3)
a
,(4,4)
a
}
The locations are given within brackets (see Fig. 1)
hPa atmospheric pressure in hectopascal
a
Variables were removed from the model due to large bias in variance in
HadCM3 outputs
Table 3 Performances of EDM in calibration and validation
Statistic Calibration (19501989) Validation (19902010)
Observations EDM Observations EDM
Avg 110.3 110.3 109.7 109.4
Std 67.3 66.5 65.7 65.6
Min 21.8 22.2 23.8 22.8
Max 277.7 259.3 262.0 251.3
NSE 0.97 0.98
R
2
0.97 0.98
Avg average of monthly evaporation in mm, Std standard deviation of
monthly evaporation in mm, Min minimum of monthly evaporation in
mm, Max maximum of monthly evaporation in mm, NSE Nash-Sutcliffe
efficiency, R
2
coefficient of determination
Then, in order to quantify the maximumpotential improve-
ment to SDM
(original)
, observed lag 0 precipitation was intro-
duced to SDM
(original)
as an additional input and the model
was calibrated and validated; this model is called SDM
(original+
OBS)
. SDM
(original+OBS)
showed a significant increase in NSE
in both calibration and validation periods as seen in Table 4.
Also, the average, the standard deviation and the maximum of
streamflow reproduced by SDM
(original+OBS)
was in better
agreement with those of observations in both calibration and
validation periods. The rise in NSE of SDM
(original+OBS)
was
much higher than that of SDM
(lag0_preci)
. This indicated that if
the PDM is able to perfectly mimic the observed precipitation,
then a significant improvement to SDM
(original)
can be intro-
duced by using the lag 0 precipitation of PDM as an input. It
was concluded that any significant improvement to PDM will
improve the performances of SDM
(lag0_preci)
.
Figure 5 shows the scatter of streamflow produced by
SDM
(original)
, SDM
(lag0_preci)
and SDM
(original+OBS)
during the
calibration (19501989) and the validation (19902010) pe-
riods. Though a rise in NSEs in both calibration and validation
periods was seen, the reduction of scatter in streamflow down-
scaled by SDM
(lag0_preci)
in its calibration and validation phases
was minimumin comparison to the scatter of streamflowdown-
scaled by SDM
(original)
. However, the streamflow output of
SDM
(original+OBS)
indicated a clear reduction of its scatter in both
calibration and validation periods in comparison to scatter of
streamflow of SDM
(original)
and SDM
(lag0_preci)
.
4.3 Reproduction of precipitation and hence streamflow using
outputs HadCM3, ECHAM5 and GFDL2.0
4.3.1 Reproduction of precipitation and bias-correction
As stated in Section 3.3, the PDM was run with the
20C3M outputs of HadCM3, ECHAM5 and GFDL2.0
for reproduction of observed precipitation over the period
19501999. This allowed the quantification of bias in the
precipitation downscaled by the PDM and its subsequent
correction. Since SDM
(lag0_preci)
does not need evaporation
as an input, the EDM was not used for the rest of the
study. The statistics of precipitation reproduced by the
PDM with NCEP/NCAR reanalysis and 20C3M outputs
of HadCM3, ECHAM5 and GFDL2.0 and the statistics of
observed precipitation (for the observation station located
at Halls Gap post office) were shown in Sachindra et al.
(2014c). In that study, it was seen that with 20C3M
outputs HadCM3 and GFDL2.0, the PDM was able to
reproduce the standard deviation, the minimum and the
maximum of precipitation with good accuracy during the
period 19501999. However, with 20C3M outputs of
ECHAM5, the PDM over-estimated (presence of bias)
the average, the standard deviation, and the minimum
and the maximum of precipitation. Also, the average of
precipitation was largely over-estimated by the PDM with
the 20C3M outputs of HadCM3 and GFDL2.0. For cor-
rection of this bias, in the study by Sachindra et al.
(2014c), the EQM technique was applied to the precipita-
tion simulated by the PDM run with the 20C3M outputs
of HadCM3, ECHAM5 and GFDL2.0 for the period
19501999 as described in Section 3.3. In that study, after
the application of the EQM technique, the average, the
standard deviation and the maximum of precipitation were
perfectly corrected, though the scatter of downscaled pre-
cipitation still remained large indicated by small R
2
and
NSE.
In Sachindra et al. (2013c, d), for validating the effective-
ness of the EQM technique for precipitation, statistics of bias-
corrected precipitation downscaled using the outputs of
HadCM3 pertaining to COMMIT GHG emission scenario
for the period 20002099 were compared with those of
Table 4 Performances of SDMs in calibration and validation
Model Calibration (19501989) Validation (19902010)
Avg Std Min Max NSE Avg Std Min Max NSE
Observations 2129.3 2387.3 0.0 12,427.0 N/A 1318.6 1788.1 0.0 9387.0 N/A
SDM
(original)
2132.4 1984.5 0.0 9773.5 0.69 2022.3 2123.7 0.0 11,255.2 0.33
SDM
(lag0_preci)
2131.0 2019.1 0.0 10,770.9 0.72 2048.4 2157.7 0.0 11,539.8 0.36
SDM
(lag1_preci)
2133.7 2023.4 0.0 9231.9 0.72 2011.4 2169.0 0.0 11,759.2 0.36
SDM
(lag2_preci)
2134.3 2021.2 0.0 9739.9 0.72 2024.1 2176.7 0.0 11,915.1 0.28
SDM
(lag0_preci_
&
_lag0_evap)
2131.3 2044.0 0.0 10,256.5 0.73 2039.7 2179.0 0.0 11,239.6 0.35
SDM
(lag0_preci_
&
_lag1_evap)
2131.9 2048.9 0.0 10,816.6 0.74 2112.0 2244.6 0.0 12,117.5 0.30
SDM
(lag0_preci_
&
_lag2_evap)
2130.8 2029.1 0.0 10,930.7 0.72 2071.0 2195.7 0.0 11,851.7 0.33
SDM
(original+OBS)
2133.5 2145.1 0.0 12,072.7 0.81 1867.8 2006.0 0.0 10,741.8 0.60
Avg average of monthly stream flow in 10
3
m
3
, Std standard deviation of monthly streamflow in 10
3
m
3
, Min minimum of monthly streamflow in
10
3
m
3
, Max maximum of monthly streamflow in 10
3
m
3
, NSE Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency
observed precipitation for the period 19501999. This proce-
dure was briefly described in Section 3.3 of this paper.
Sachindra et al. (2014c) commented that in validation, EQM
was able to successfully reduce the bias in precipitation
downscaled with HadCM3 outputs of the COMMIT GHG
emission scenario for the period 20002099 and also it was
assumed that EQM is able to reduce the bias in the precipita-
tion downscaled with the outputs of ECHAM5 and GFDL2.0.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

s
t
r
e
a
m
f
l
o
w

(
x

1
0
3
m
3
/
m
o
n
t
h
)
Observed flow (x 10
3
m
3
/month)
N-S = 0.72
(c) Calibration
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

s
t
r
e
a
m
f
l
o
w

(
x

1
0
3
m
3
/
m
o
n
t
h
)
Observed flow (x 10
3
m
3
/month)
N-S = 0.36
(d) Validation
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

s
t
r
e
a
m
f
l
o
w

(
x

1
0
3
m
3
/
m
o
n
t
h
)
Observed flow (x 10
3
m
3
/month)
N-S = 0.81
(e) Calibration
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

s
t
r
e
a
m
f
l
o
w

(
x

1
0
3
m
3
/
m
o
n
t
h
)
Observed flow (x 10
3
m
3
/month)
N-S = 0.60
(f) Validation
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

s
t
r
e
a
m
f
l
o
w

(
x

1
0
3
m
3
/
m
o
n
t
h
)
Observed flow (x 10
3
m
3
/month)
N-S = 0.69
(a) Calibration
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

s
t
r
e
a
m
f
l
o
w

(
x

1
0
3
m
3
/
m
o
n
t
h
)
Observed flow (x 10
3
m
3
/month)
N-S = 0.33
(b) Validation
SDM
(original)
SDM
(lag0_preci)
SDM
(original+OBS)
Fig. 5 Scatter plots for
calibration and validation phases
of SDMs
4.3.2 Reproduction of streamflow and bias-correction
For reproduction of past observed streamflow, SDM
(lag0_preci)
was run with the 20C3M outputs of HadCM3, ECHAM5 and
GFDL2.0 and the bias-corrected precipitation simulated by
the PDM, as described in Section 3.3. This allowed the quan-
tification of bias in the streamflow downscaled by the
SDM
(lag0_preci)
and its subsequent correction. The statistics
of observed streamflow and those of streamflow simulated
by SDM
(lag0_preci)
during the period 19501999 are shown in
Table 5. It can be seen from Table 5 that when the
SDM
(lag0_preci)
was run with the 20C3M outputs of HadCM3,
ECHAM5 and GFDL2.0 and outputs of PDM, it tended to
over-estimate the average, the standard deviation, and the
maximum of streamflow. This indicated the influence of bias
in 20C3M outputs of HadCM3, ECHAM5 and GFDL2.0 on
downscaled streamflow. Once the EQM technique was ap-
plied to the streamflow produced by SDM
(lag0_preci)
, the bias
in the average, the standard deviation and the maximum of
streamflow was corrected to a good degree. However, the
improvement in NSE and R
2
were small. This indicated that
though the statistics of streamflow were well corrected, the
scatter of the downscaled streamflow has not reduced much.
This leads to the conclusion that projections of streamflow
produced into the future should not be used as time series,
instead they should be used in terms of probability distribution
and statistics such as seasonal average, standard deviation and
minimum/maximum etc.
4.3.3 Validation of bias-correction for streamflow
After the EQM technique was applied to the streamflow
outputs of SDM
(lag0_preci)
for past climate, a validation of
this bias-correction was performed. For validation of ef-
fectiveness of the EQM-based bias-correction for
streamflow, the SDM
(lag0_preci)
was run with the outputs
of HadCM3 pertaining to COMMIT GHG emission sce-
nario. Then, the EQM technique was applied to the
streamflow projection produced into the future period
20002099 under COMMIT GHG emission scenario, as
described in Section 3.3.
In Tables 6 and 7, the statistics of bias-corrected streamflow
downscaled using COMMIT HadCM3 outputs for the period
20002099 were compared with those of observed streamflow
of the period 19501999. As shown in Tables 6 and 7, it was
seen that prior to the application of the EQM bias-correction,
the average of streamflow was over-estimated by the down-
scaling model in all seasons. However, with the application of
the EQM technique, this over-estimation has largely reduced.
The standard deviation and the maximum of streamflow in
summer and autumn were also corrected with good accuracy
by EQM. Following the EQM bias-correction, the mismatch
between the minimum of observed streamflow and that of
streamflow projected into the future also reduced largely. As
the influence of bias in 20C3M outputs of HadCM3,
ECHAM5 and GFDL2.0 on downscaled streamflow were
similar in nature (see Table 5), it was assumed that the influ-
ence of bias in COMMIToutputs of HadCM3, ECHAM5 and
GFDL2.0 on downscaled streamflow were also similar in
nature. Hence, it was realised that the EQM technique should
also be able to correct the bias in the streamflows projected
into the future by the downscaling model run with the outputs
of ECHAM5 and GFDL2.0.
4.4 Projection of precipitation and hence streamflow
into the future
4.4.1 Projection of precipitation into the future
In order to produce streamflow projections into the future
using SDM
(lag0_preci)
, projections of precipitation are required.
In the study by Sachindra et al (2014c), by introducing the
Table 5 Performances of SDM
(lag0_preci)
with NCEP/NCAR and HadCM3 outputs before and after bias-correction
Statistic Period (19501999)
Observations With NCEP/NCAR outputs With HadCM3 outputs With ECHAM5 outputs With GFDL2.0 outputs
Before bias-
correction
After bias-
correction
Before bias-
correction
After bias-
correction
Before bias-
correction
After bias-
correction
Avg 2048.7 2144.5 3515.5 2035.4 3507.4 2034.9 3506.6 2035.2
Std 2339.4 2031.3 2724.1 2350.1 2719.5 2350.5 2706.0 2350.3
Min 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Max 12,427.0 11,255.2 13,791.1 12,427.0 13,997.3 12,427.0 12,873.7 12,427.0
NSE 0.69 0.79 0.20 0.77 0.15 0.80 0.25
R
2
0.69 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.16 0.14
Avg average of monthly streamflow in 10
3
m
3
3
m
3
10
3
m
3
3
m
3
, NSE Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency, R
2
coefficient of determination
standardised outputs of HadCM3, ECHAM5 and GFDL2.0
pertaining to the A2 and B1 GHG emission scenarios to the
PDM, precipitation projections were produced over the period
20002099, and those projections were bias-corrected using
the EQM technique. For a more detailed description on the
application of the EQM technique in correcting bias in the
precipitation output of a downscaling model, readers are re-
ferred to Sachindra et al (2014b).
The A2 and B1 GHG emission scenario refer to high and
low levels of GHG emissions in the twenty-first century
respectively (A2/B1 CO
2
concentration of about 850/
550 ppm at the end of the twenty-first century) (IPCC 2000).
The use of A2 and B1 GHG emission scenarios in a statistical
downscaling study allows the quantification of impacts of
relatively high and low levels of GHG emissions on the
catchment scale hydroclimatology, respectively (Sachindra
et al. 2014b).
In the study by Sachindra et al (2014c), it was found that
when the HadCM3 outputs corresponding to A2 and B1 GHG
emission scenarios were used as inputs to the PDM, the
average of precipitation at the observation station at Halls
Gap post office in the period 20002099 showed an increase
in autumn and winter, and a decrease in summer and spring in
comparison to the corresponding seasonal averages of ob-
served precipitation of the period 19501999. In the same
study, when the ECHAM5 outputs for the A2 and B1 GHG
emission scenarios were used as inputs to the PDM, the
average of precipitation in the period 20002099 showed an
increase in summer and a decline in winter and spring in
comparison to the corresponding seasonal averages of ob-
served precipitation of the period 19501999. With the use
of outputs of GFDL2.0 pertaining to A2 and B1 GHG emis-
sion scenarios to the PDM, the average of precipitation in the
period 20002099 showed a rise in spring and a decline in
autumn in comparison to the corresponding seasonal averages
of observed precipitation of the period 19501999.
4.4.2 Projection of streamflow into the future
Once precipitation was projected into the future (20002099)
and bias-corrected, it was standardised for each calendar
month using the mean and the standard deviation of observed
Table 6 Statistics of observed streamflow of the period 19501999 and streamflow downscaled using HadCM3 COMMIT outputs for 20002099
(summer and autumn)
Statistic Summer Autumn
Observed SDM
(lag0_preci)
with HadCM3
COMMIT outputs (20002099)
Observed SDM
(lag0_preci)
with HadCM3
Before bias-correction After bias-correction Before bias-correction After bias-correction
Avg 836.0 997.6 822.0 603.2 1424.9 754.5
Std 850.4 793.8 865.6 936.2 1473.8 925.9
Min 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Max 8041.0 3357.0 8714.9 8017.0 4640.6 8207.0
3
m
3
3
m
3
10
3
m
3
3
m
3
Table 7 Statistics of observed streamflow of the period 19501999 and streamflow downscaled using HadCM3 COMMIT outputs for 20002099
(winter and spring)
Statistic Winter Spring
Observed SDM
(lag0_preci)
with HadCM3
Observed SDM
(lag0_preci)
with HadCM3
Before bias-correction After bias-correction Before bias-correction After bias-correction
Avg 3394.3 3888.0 3448.8 3361.4 4620.9 2453.6
Std 2496.1 1930.3 3294.9 2651.4 2398.5 3045.4
Min 0.0 510.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Max 11,162.0 13,180.6 17,540.7 12,427.0 13,933.8 16,162.3
3
m
3
3
m
3
10
3
m
3
3
m
3
precipitation of period 19501989. Then, the HadCM3,
ECHAM5 and GFDL2.0 outputs pertaining to the A2 and
B1 GHG emission scenarios for SDM
(lag0_preci)
corresponding
to future climate were also standardised for each calendar
month using the means and the standard deviations of
NCEP/NCAR reanalysis outputs of period 19501989. Using
the above standardised precipitation of the PDM and outputs
of HadCM3, ECHAM5 and GFDL2.0 pertaining to A2 and
B1 GHG emission scenarios as inputs to SDM
(lag0_preci)
, pro-
jections of streamflowfor each calendar month was produced.
Table 8 shows the seasonal statistics of observed and
projected streamflows (inflow to Lake Bellfield in north-
western Victoria, Australia) corresponding to A2 and B1
GHG emission scenarios for periods 19501999 and 2000
2099, respectively. Also, the ensemble average streamflow
time series was computed from the streamflow outputs of
SDM
(lag0_preci)
when it was run with the outputs of HadCM3,
ECHAM5 and GFDL2.0 and the precipitation outputs of
PDM. Statistics of streamflow derived from the ensemble
average streamflowtime series are also shown in Table 8. Note
that in Table 8, changes in the average of precipitation pro-
duced by PDM over the period 20002099 with respect to the
average of observed precipitation in the period 19501999 are
also provided (for more details, refer to footnote of Table 8).
According to Table 8, it was seen that the average of
streamflowcorresponding to both A2 and B1 emission scenarios,
indicated a decline in summer, autumn and spring and showed an
increase in winter, for all GCMs and for the ensemble. However,
as shown in Table 8, the precipitation outputs of the PDMdid not
showsuch decline in summer, autumn and spring and an increase
in winter for all three GCMs and for both GHG emission
scenarios. Instead, average of precipitation projected by PDM
indicated mixed results in above seasons, depending on the
GCM and the GHG emission scenario of interest. It was realised
that an increase (or decrease) in precipitation in a season does not
guarantee an increase (or decrease) in the streamflow in that
season. This is possibly because though precipitation is the main
driver of streamflow, variables such as soil moisture content and
atmospheric moisture content (influence the evaporation rate)
can significantly influence the streamflow generation process.
As an example, a dry catchment (i.e. low soil moisture content
and atmospheric moisture content) can absorb large amount of
the precipitation and cause either small increase or even some
decrease in the average of streamflow.
Similar to precipitation, streamflow also showed a rise in
its standard deviation and the maximum, in all seasons corre-
sponding to all three GCMs and both GHG emission scenar-
ios. This indicated that there will be more fluctuations in the
Table 8 Seasonal statistics of observed and projected streamflow
Season Statistic Observed (195099) HadCM3 (200099) ECHAM5 (200099) GFDL2.0 (200099) Ensemble average (200099)
A2 B1 A2 B1 A2 B1 A2 B1
Summer Avg 835.9 421.7
a
758.9
a
767.1
b
764.3
b
775.3
b
772.4
a
654.7
c
765.2
a
Std 850.4 808.7 988.6 969.8 962.3 928.6 923.2 641.0 905.9
Min 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Max 8041.0 9275.7 11,055.1 11,230.5 11,000.3 10,911.7 10,716.8 7380.7 10,924.0
Autumn Avg 603.2 524.8
b
499.8
a
512.0
c
504.9
b
484.8
a
491.6
a
507.2
a
498.8
a
Std 936.1 1054.1 1047.2 1046.4 1047.7 1046.2 1046.0 1030.4 1026.6
Min 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Max 8017.0 9260.3 9268.0 9258.7 9258.7 9261.1 9257.8 9260.0 9261.5
Winter Avg 3394.3 3797.1
b
3823.7
b
3487.4
a
3588.7
a
3736.7
c
3869.1
b
3673.7
a
3760.5
b
Std 2496.1 3184.5 2891.5 2739.8 2804.7 3023.2 3017.3 2612.9 2474.2
Min 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.2
Max 11,162.0 19,964.9 15,435.5 14,753.4 14,509.1 14,229.4 13,849.2 15,494.7 13,426.9
Spring Avg 3361.4 2509.2
a
2375.5
a
2051.7
a
2173.2
a
2812.3
b
2965.9
b
2457.8
a
2504.9
a
Std 2651.4 3042.3 2734.5 2579.5 2533.1 2922.6 2949.3 2384.5 2242.8
Min 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Max 12,427.0 15,863.1 13,841.3 13,722.9 12,768.3 14,133.1 14,944.9 12,500.1 11,424.7
3
m
3
3
m
3
10
3
m
3
, Max maximumof monthly streamflowin 10
3
m
3
, Ensemble average average time series computed fromthe outputs of SDM
(lag0_preci)
when
it was run with the outputs of HadCM3, ECHAM5 and GFDL2.0 and precipitation outputs of PDM
a
Average of precipitation showed a decrease with respect to that of observations of period 195099
b
Average of precipitation showed an increase with respect to that of observations of period 195099
c
Average of precipitation did not show any change with respect to that of observations of period 195099
streamflow regime in the future and the magnitude of the
extremely high streamflows tend to increase in all seasons.
Also, it was noticed that in general, the maximum of
streamflow was higher for the A2 GHG emission scenarios
compared to that of B1, for the majority of GCMs in all
seasons.
Figure 6 shows the probability exceedance curves for ob-
served streamflow for the period 19501999 and the proba-
bility exceedance curves for streamflow projected into the
future period 20002099 derived using the multi-model en-
semble average streamflowtime series, for each season. It was
clear that in all seasons, except spring, the magnitude of the
extremely high streamflow tends to show a rise for both A2
and B1 emission scenarios. In summer, for most of the ex-
ceedance probabilities (particularly for smaller exceedance
probabilities), streamflow shows a decrease under both sce-
narios; however still the extremely high streamflow tends to
show a rise. This decrease in streamflow was probably due to
the dryness of the catchment in summer caused by the decline
in precipitation in spring (see Table 8 for decline in average
precipitation in spring).
In autumn, for smaller exceedance probabilities (high
streamflows), streamflowshowed a rising trend and for higher
exceedance probabilities (lowstreamflows) a decreasing trend
was seen. In winter, streamflow for both A2 and B1 GHG
emission scenarios showed a rising trend for the majority of
the exceedance probabilities (low to high streamflows). In
spring, for the majority of exceedance probabilities
streamflow showed a decrease corresponding to both A2
and B1 GHG emission scenarios. Furthermore, according to
the exceedance curves in Fig. 6, it was realised that in the
future there will be more months with zero flows particularly
in summer and autumn.
The long-term seasonal statistics (e.g. average, standard
deviation, minimum and maximum) of monthly streamflows
obtained from the bias-corrected time series are useful for the
management of water resources in a catchment. The average
of streamflow in each season determined in this study pro-
vides an idea of the availability of water in Lake Bellfield in
the future, hence the availability of water to Halls Gap and
Pomonal towns and also for the recreational activities which
take place at this lake can be determined. This allows the
appropriate allocation of water to various needs depending
on the availability. The standard deviation of streamflow
shows the degree of fluctuations in inflow to Lake Bellfield
in the future. In this study, a rise in the standard deviation of
inflowto Lake Bellfield was seen in all seasons. The rise in the
standard deviation of inflow to Lake Bellfield indicated more
fluctuations in the streamflow regime in the future. These
fluctuations in the inflow to the lake should be taken into
account in its future operations and any modification, as they
impact the reliability of water supply to customers. The
knowledge of the extremes in the streamflowregime is helpful
in the management of droughts and floods. Since the number
of months with zero inflow and the magnitude of the peak
inflow to Lake Bellfield in all seasons have increased, new
drought and flood mitigation measures may be needed in the
management of droughts and floods in the catchment in the
future.
4.5 Uncertainties associated with streamflow projections
It should be noted that the projections of streamflows pro-
duced in this study using statistical downscaling are subject to
a cascade of uncertainties originating from a number of
sources. These sources of uncertainties include; GHG emis-
sion scenarios, GCMs, the downscaling technique, methodol-
ogy followed in developing the downscaling model (e.g.
predictor selection and pre-processing, selection of calibration
period) and predictor-predictand stationarity assumption
(Sachindra et al. 2014d).
The actual amounts of GHG emissions in the future world
are unknown as they are dependent on a number of factors
such as population, technological development and govern-
ment policies, which can largely change in the future over
time. Therefore, several equally likely but different GHG
emission scenarios have been defined for the future (e.g.
SRES GHG emission scenarios (IPCC 2000), Representative
concentration pathways (van Vuuren et al. 2011)). The use of
several equally likely but different GHGemission scenarios in
producing catchment scale hydroclimatic projections into the
future enables the quantification of uncertainties introduced
by GHG emissions to the projections. In this study, the pro-
jections of streamflows were produced corresponding to the
A2 and B1 GHG emission scenarios for the quantification of
relatively high and low impacts of GHG emissions on
streamflows in the future. The streamflow projections pro-
duced in this study should be treated as plausible rather than
definite as the GHG emission scenarios on which they are
based are on are plausible realisations of future GHG
emissions.
The projections produced using a downscaling model can
vary from GCM to GCM as the approximations and assump-
tions employed in the structures of GCMs vary from one
another. In the present study, outputs of HadCM3, ECHAM5
and GFDL2.0 were used to produce inputs to the downscaling
models. Using sets of outputs from different GCMs on the
downscaling models and hence deriving an ensemble of pro-
jections can better explain the uncertainties (e.g. visualize the
upper and lower uncertainty bounds of the projections of the
predictand) introduced by different GCMs to the projections
of the predictand of interest. Furthermore, combination of
ensemble of projections using an ensemble modelling tech-
nique (e.g. averaging) can reduce the dependence of projec-
tions of one specific GCM. In this study, for the derivation of
the ensemble projections, the simple averaging technique was
used. In simple averaging, each projection produced by the
statistical downscaling model is assigned the same weightage.
In other words, it is assumed that all GCMs perform equally.
However, this assumption can be coarse and assigning
weightages to each projection based on the performance of
each GCM for each calendar month and hence deriving an
ensemble projection can be regarded as a better approach
(Zhang and Huang 2013). However, such procedure is com-
putationally expensive.
Since different downscaling techniques can represent the
predictor-predictand relationships differently, the downscaling
technique used in a study can also introduce a certain degree
of uncertainty to the projections. However, in comparison to
the uncertainties introduced by the GHG emission scenarios
and GCMs, the uncertainties introduced by different
downscaling techniques are negligible. Sachindra et al
(2013) used LS-SVM and MLR for statistically downscaling
monthly GCM outputs to monthly streamflows and
commented that both techniques yielded similar results.
Also, Tripathi et al. (2006) found that LS-SVM is marginally
better than ANN in downscaling GCM outputs to
precipitation. Furthermore, they commented that both tech-
niques failed to correctly capture the extremes of precipitation.
The methodology used in the development of a downscal-
ing model can also introduce some uncertainty to the projec-
tion. The overall methodology of a downscaling exercise
includes the selection of potential predictors, standardisation
of predictor data, selection of the calibration period and model
calibration and validation. Each of the above steps can be
performed in a number of different manners. As an example,
in a downscaling exercise, instead of using traditional calibra-
tion and validation approach, a cross-validation approach can
be adopted. Therefore, depending on the methodology
employed, the outputs of a downscaling model can vary.
Almost all statistical downscaling models are dependent on
the assumption that the relationships derived between the
predictors and predictands for the past climate will be valid
for the future, under changing climate. In other words, the
validity of the stationarity of predictor-predictand relation-
ships under non-stationary climate is assumed. However, the
validity of the above assumption is questionable under non-
stationary climate. A few attempts to handle the non-
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Observed streamflow in summer 1950-1999
Multi-model ensemble projected streamflow in
summer A2 2000-2099
summer B1 2000-2099
Exceedance probability
S
t
r
e
a
m
f
l
o
w
/
(
x

1
0
3
m
3
/
m
o
n
t
h
)
(a) Summer
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Observed streamflow in autumn 1950-1999
autumn A2 2000-2099
autumn B1 2000-2099
S
t
r
e
a
m
f
l
o
w
/
(
x

1
0
3
m
3
/
m
o
n
t
h
)
(b) Autumn
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Observed streamflow in winter 1950-1999
winter A2 2000-2099
winter B1 2000-2099
S
t
r
e
a
m
f
l
o
w
/
(
x

1
0
3
m
3
/
m
o
n
t
h
)
(c) Winter
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Observed streamflow in spring 1950-1999
spring A2 2000-2099
spring B1 2000-2099
S
t
r
e
a
m
f
l
o
w
/
(
x

1
0
3
m
3
/
m
o
n
t
h
)
(d) Spring
Fig. 6 Seasonal probability exceedance curves for observed streamflow and bias-corrected streamflow for future climate under A2 and B1 GHG
emission scenarios
stationarity of predictor-predictand relationships under non-
stationary climate are documented in Raje and Mujumdar
(2010), Duan et al (2012) and Hertig and Jacobeit (2013). In
this study, like most of the other downscaling studies, it was
assumed that the predictor-predictand relationships will be
stationary under changing climate (non-stationary climate).
Further investigation is needed for the confirmation of the
impact of the above assumption on the streamflowprojections
produced in this study.
Furthermore, it should be noted that in direct downscaling
of GCM outputs to catchment scale streamflows, the changes
in the land use patterns and water diversions in and out of a
catchment are not considered as such catchment scale changes
are not characterised in the GCM outputs.
5 Conclusions
The following conclusions were drawn from this study:
1. When the precipitation downscaled from large-scale at-
mospheric variables is used as an additional input to a
statistical model developed for downscaling large-scale
atmospheric variables to streamflows in a catchment, its
performances improved by a small amount. However, the
use of observed precipitation as an additional input to that
streamflow downscaling model increased its perfor-
mances significantly. Then, it was realised that any im-
provement to the precipitation downscaling model will
introduce an improvement to the streamflow downscaling
model, when it is used with improved precipitation
predictions.
2. If the statistical model developed for downscaling large-
scale atmospheric variables to streamflows in a catchment
already contains atmospheric humidity and soil moisture
variables, inclusion of evaporation as an additional input
to that downscaling model may not lead to any improve-
ment in model performance. This is because atmospheric
humidity and soil moisture variables can indirectly ex-
plain the influence of evaporation on streamflow. There-
fore, when evaporation is introduced to a streamflow
downscaling model, it brings redundant information to
the model, leading to no significant improvement to the
model performance.
3. A mismatch was seen between the statistics of observed
streamflow for the past climate and those of streamflow
reproduced by the downscaling model when run with the
20C3M of GCMs and the precipitation downscaled using
the 20C3M outputs of GCMs as inputs. It indicated the
presence of bias in the 20C3M outputs of GCMs, and the
need of a correction to bias was identified.
4. The equidistant quantile mapping technique corrected the
average, the standard deviation, the minimum and the
maximum of streamflow reproduced by a downscaling
model pertaining to the past climate with high degree of
accuracy. This is because the cumulative distribution
function of the model reproduced streamflow is mapped
directly onto the cumulative distribution function of the
corresponding observations. The validation of the equi-
distant quantile mapping technique also showed reduction
in the bias in the statistics of streamflow produced by the
downscaling model.
5. Though the statistics of streamflow downscaled using the
GCM outputs can be successfully corrected using the
equidistant quantile mapping technique, the scatter of
downscaled streamflow was reduced only by a small
amount. This indicated that the improvement to the time
series of the variable of interest (e.g. streamflow) is small.
Therefore, after the bias-correction based on the equidis-
tant quantile mapping technique, the streamflows
projected into the future should be interpreted in terms
of statistics and probability distributions rather than a time
series.
Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the financial
assistance provided by the Australian Research Council Linkage Grant
scheme and Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water Corporation for this
project.
References
Anandhi A, Srinivas VV, Nanjundiah RS, Kumar DN (2008)
Downscaling precipitation to river basin in India for IPCC SRES
scenarios using support vector machine. Int J Climatol 28:401420
Bastola S, Misra V (2013) Evaluation of dynamically downscaled reanal-
ysis precipitation data for hydrological application. Hydrol Process.
doi:10.1002/hyp.9734
Bedia J, Herrera S, Martn DS, Koutsias N, Gutirrez JM (2013) Robust
projections of fire weather index in the Mediterranean using statis-
tical downscaling. Clim Chang 120:229247
Benestad R, Hanssen-Bauer I, Chen D (2008) Empirical-statistical down-
scaling. World Scientific, Singapore, p 228
Cannon AJ, Whitfield PH (2002) Downscaling recent streamflow condi-
tions in British Columbia, Canada using ensemble neural network
models. J Hydrol 259:136151
Can J, Domnguez F, Valds JB(2011) Downscaling climate variability
associated with quasi-periodic climate signals: a new statistical
approach using MSSA. J Hydrol 398:6575
Cayley RA, Taylor DH (1997) Grampians special map area and geolog-
ical report. Geol Surv Victoria Rep 107:42130
Denis B, Laprise R, Cay D, Ct J (2002) Downscaling ability of one-
way nested regional climate models: the big-brother experiment.
Clim Dynam 18:627646
Duan J, McIntyre N, Onof C. (2012) Resolving non-stationarity in
statistical downscaling of precipitation under climate change sce-
narios. British Hydrological Society Eleventh National Symposium,
Hydrology for a changing world, Dundee, UK
Flint LE, Flint AL (2012) Downscaling future climate scenarios to fine
scales for hydrologic and ecological modelling and analysis. Ecol
Process 1:2
Fowler HJ, Blenkinsop S, Tebaldi C (2007) Linking climate change
modelling to impacts studies: recent advances in downscaling tech-
niques for hydrological modelling. Int J Climatol 27:15471578
Ghosh S, Mujumdar PP (2008) Statistical downscaling of GCM simula-
tions to streamflow using relevance vector machine. Adv Water
Resour 31:132146
Goyal MK, Ojha CSP (2012) Downscaling of surface temperature for
lake catchment in an arid region in India using linear multiple
regression and neural networks. Int J Climatol 32:552566
Gutirrez JM, San-Martn D, Brands S, Manzanas R, Herrera S (2013)
Reassessing statistical downscaling techniques for their robust ap-
plication under climate change conditions. J Clim 26:171188
GWMWater (2011a) Lake Bellfield operating rules Available online at
http://www.gwmwater.org.au/information/publications/ground-and-
surface-water/west-wimmera-gma/cat_view/163-reservoir-
operating-rules
GWMWater (2011b) Storage management rules for the Wimmera Mallee
system headworks. Available online at http://www.gwmwater.org.
au/information/publications/ground-and-surface-water/west-
wimmera-gma/cat_view/163-reservoir-operating-rules. 56
Haas R, Pinto JG (2012) A combined statistical and dynamical approach
for downscaling large-scale footprints of European windstorms. J
Geophys Res Lett 39:L23804
Hertig E, Jacobeit J (2008) Assessments of Mediterranean precipitation
changes for the 21
st
century using statistical downscaling tech-
niques. Int J Climatol 28:10251045
Hertig E, Jacobeit J (2013) A novel approach to statistical downscaling
considering nonstationarities: application to daily precipitation in
the Mediterranean area. J Geophys Res Atmos 118:520533
Horvath K, Koracin D, Vellore RK, Jiang J, Belu R (2012) Sub-kilometre
dynamical downscaling of near-surface winds in complex terrain
using WRF and MM5 mesoscale models. J Geophys Res 117:D11
IPCC (2000) IPCC special report on emissions scenariossummary for
policymakers. Online report available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/
special-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf. 4-8.
Jeong DI, St-Hilaire A, Ouarda TBMJ, Gachon P (2012) Multisite
statistical downscaling model for daily precipitation combined by
multivariate multiple linear regression and stochastic weather gen-
erator. Clim Chang 114:567591
Karl TR, Wang WC, Schlesinger ME, Knight RW, Portman D (1990) A
method of relating general circulation model simulated climate to
the observed local climate part I: seasonal statistics. J Clim 3:1053
1079
Landman WA, Mason SJ, Tyson PD, Tennant WJ (2001) Statistical
downscaling of GCM simulations to streamflow. J Hydrol 252:
221236
Li H, Sheffield J, Wood EF (2010) Bias correction of monthly precipita-
tion and temperature fields from intergovernmental panel on climate
change AR4 models using equidistant quantile matching. J Geophys
Res-Atmos 115:120
Maurer EP, Hidalgo HG (2008) Utility of daily vs. monthly large-scale
climate data: an intercomparison of two statistical downscaling
methods. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 12:551563
Murphy J (1998) An evaluation of statistical and dynamical techniques
for downscaling local climate. Int J Climatol 12:22562284
Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual
models, part 1a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282290
Nasseri M, Tavakol-Davani H, Zahraie B(2013) Performance assessment
of different data mining methods in statistical downscaling of daily
precipitation. J Hydrol 492:114
Pearson K (1895) Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution.
iii. Regression heredity and panmixia. Philos T Roy Soc A187:253
318
Qian JH, Zubair L (2010) The effect of grid spacing and domain size on
the quality of ensemble regional climate downscaling over South
Asia during the north-easterly monsoon. Mon Weather Rev 138:
27802802
Raje D, Mujumdar PP (2010) Constraining uncertainty in regional hy-
drologic impacts of climate change: nonstationarity in downscaling.
Water Resour Res 46:W07543
Rojas M (2006) Multiply nested regional climate simulation for Southern
America: sensitivity to model resolution. Mon Weather Rev 134:
22082223
Rummukainen M (2010) State-of-the-art with regional climate models.
Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 1:8296
Sachindra DA, Huang F, Barton AF, Perera BJC (2013) Least square
support vector and multi-linear regression for statistically downscal-
ing general circulation model outputs to catchment streamflows. Int
J Climatol 33:10871106
Sachindra DA, Huang F, Barton AF, Perera BJC (2014a) Statistical
downscaling of general circulation model outputs to precipitation
part 1: calibration and validation. Int J Climatol 34:32643281
Sachindra DA, Huang F, Barton AF, Perera BJC (2014b) Statistical
downscaling of general circulation model outputs to precipitation
part 2: bias-correction and future projections. Int J Climatol 34:
32823303
Sachindra DA, Huang F, Barton AF, Perera BJC (2014c) Multi-model
ensemble approach for statistically downscaling general circulation
model outputs to precipitation. QJ Roy Meteor Soc 140:11611178.
doi:10.1002/qj.2205
Sachindra DA, Huang F, Barton AF, Perera BJC (2014d) Statistical
downscaling of general circulation model outputs to catchment scale
hydroclimatic variables issues, challenges and possible solutions. J
Water Clim Change. doi:10.2166/wcc.2014.056
Salvi K, Kannan S, Ghosh S (2011) Statistical downscaling and bias-
correction for projections of Indian rainfall and temperature in
climate change studies. Proceedings of 4
th
International
Conference on Environmental and Computer Science. 1618
September 2011, Singapore, pp.7-11
Samadi S, Carbone GJ, Mahdavi M, Sharifi F, Bihamta MR (2012)
Statistical downscaling of climate data to estimate streamflow in a
semi-arid catchment. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 9:48694918
Shang KZ, Wang SG, Ma YX, Zhou ZJ, Wang JY, Liu HL, Wang YQ
(2007) A scheme for calculating soil moisture content by using
routine weather data. Atmos Chem Phys 7:51975206
Sinclair KM (2004) Wimmera-Malle simulation modelAnnual update
methodology. A report by Sinclair, Knight Merz, Melbourne,
Australia. 2179
Smith I, Chandler E (2010) Refining rainfall projections for the
Murray Darling Basin of south-east Australiathe effect of
sampling model results based on performance. Clim Chang
102:377393
Tareghian R, Rasmussen PF (2013) Statistical downscaling of precipita-
tion using quantile regression. J Hydrol 487:122135
Timbal B, Fernandez E, Li Z (2009) Generalization of a statistical
downscaling model to provide local climate change projections for
Australia. Environ Model Softw 24:341358
Tisseuil C, Vrac M, Lek S, Wade AJ (2010) Statistical downscaling of
river flows. J Hydrol 385:279291
Tripathi S, Srinivas VV, Nanjundiah RS (2006) Downscaling of precip-
itation for climate change scenarios: a support vector machine
approach. J Hydrol 330:621640
van Vuuren PD, Edmonds JA, Kainuma M, Riahi K, Thomson AM,
Hibbard K, Hurtt GC, Kram T, Krey V, Lamarque JF, Masui T,
Meinshausen M, Nakicenovic N, Smith SJ, Rose S (2011) The repre-
sentative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Chang 109:531
Wang P, Yamanaka T, Qiu GY (2012) Causes of decreased reference
evapotranspiration and pan evaporation in the Jinghe River catch-
ment, northern China. Environmentalist 32:110
Wilby RL, Fowler HJ (2011) Regional climate modelling in modelling
the impact of climate change on water resources. Modelling the
impact of climate change on water resources. F. Fung, A. Lopez
and M. New, eds., Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK. 209
Wilby RL, Charles SP, Zorita E, Timbal B, Whetton P, Mearns LO (2004)
Guidelines for use of climate scenarios developed fromstatistical down-
scaling methods, supporting material to the IPCC. Available online at
http://www.ipcc-data.org/. 321. (Accessed 28
th
January 2012)
Wilks DS (1999) Multisite downscaling of daily precipitation with a
stochastic weather generator. Climate Res 11:125136
Yang T, Li H, Wang W, Xu CY, Yu Z (2012) Statistical downscaling of
extreme daily precipitation, evaporation, and temperature and con-
struction of future scenarios. Hydrol Process 26:35103523
Zhang H, Huang GH (2013) Development of climate change projections
for small watersheds using multi-model ensemble simulation and
stochastic weather generation. Clim Dynam 40:805821

Potential Improvements To Statistical Downscaling of General Circulation Model Outputs To Catchment Streamflows With Downscaled Precipitation and Evaporation

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Potential Improvements To Statistical Downscaling of General Circulation Model Outputs To Catchment Streamflows With Downscaled Precipitation and Evaporation

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ORIGINAL PAPER

Potential improvements to statistical downscaling of general

Você também pode gostar