Performance and uncertainty evaluation of empirical downscaling methods in quantifying the climate change impacts on hydrology over two North American river basins

Statistical and dynamical downscaling techniques have been proposed to bridge the gaps between coarse-scale and generally biased climate model outputs and the point-scale requirements of impact model inputs. Amongst the various statistical approaches, empirical downscaling methods are the most commonly used due to their ease of implementation. Several empirical downscaling approaches have been proposed and need to be assessed as to which method contributes (or not) to the overall climate change uncertainty. Accordingly, this work aims at assessing the uncertainty of six empirical downscaling methods in quantifying the hydrological impact of climate change over two North American river basins under different climate conditions. The six empirical downscaling methods are grouped into change factor (two methods) and bias correction (four methods) approaches. The uncertainty related to the choice of an empirical downscaling method is compared to that associated with the choice of climate simulation, through the use of two Regional Climate Models (RCMs) driven by three different General Circulation Models (GCMs), totaling four RCM simulations, taken from the NARCCAP inter-comparison project. The future (2041-2065) hydrological regimes simulated with an empirical lumped hydrology model (HSAMI) are compared to the reference period (1971-1995) using a set of hydrology criteria which includes statistics of both mean and extreme values. The results show a large uncertainty envelope associated with the choice of a given empirical downscaling method, as well as for the choice of an RCM simulation. The uncertainty due to empirical downscaling and RCM simulation was more significant in projecting extreme streamflow than in projecting mean flows. Comparing the uncertainty envelope of empirical downscaling methods to the envelope resulting from four RCM simulations indicates that both are similar, even though the latter was slightly larger for some statistics. Finally, the uncertainty linked to the choice of an empirical downscaling approach (change factor vs. bias correction) was much larger than within each type. Overall, this work emphasizes the importance of using several climate projections and empirical downscaling approaches to delineate uncertainty when assessing the climate change impacts on hydrology. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.