Significant contribution of bias correction methods to uncertainty in future runoff projections under CMIP6 climate change

Mokgam River watershed, South Korea In this study, the uncertainty contribution of three sources and their interaction effects on future climate and runoff projections were quantified. General circulation models (GCMs), shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs), and bias correction (BC) methods were considered as the three sources. 20 GCMs under four SSPs (SSP1–2.6, SSP2–4.5, SSP3–7.0, and SSP5–8.5) were used to project the future climate of the study area. Seven BC methods were used to adjust the GCMs’ daily climate data. The storm water management model (SWMM) was used as a hydrological model to simulate runoff, incorporating both natural and conduit flows according to GCMs’ climate projection. The normalized Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NNSE), normalized root mean square error (NRMSE), Kling-Gupta efficiency (KGE), and modified index of agreement (MD) were used to evaluate the performance of the GCMs’ climate simulations and the SWMM runoff simulations, which were based on the GCMs’ climate data. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) method was used to quantify the uncertainty. The results showed that the assumptions of the BC method had a significant impact on the variation in climate and runoff projections. In the uncertainty of future climate and runoff projection results, BC methods exhibited the predominant contribution, while SSPs showed the least contribution. However, the uncertainty contribution from SSPs and GCMs was predominant in temperature projections, and these results could vary depending on the assumptions and the number of BC methods used. Overall, this study emphasizes not only the influence of GCMs but also the impact of BC methods on future climate and runoff projections. • Uncertainty contribution of three sources on climate and runoff projections. • Analysis of variance method was used to quantify uncertainty contribution. • Highlighted the impact of bias correction methods on uncertainty in climate and runoff projection.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Hydrology Regional Studies
Published
2024-09-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2024.101973
Citations
13
Primary Topic
Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.62

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Significant contribution of bias correction methods to uncertainty in future runoff projections under CMIP6 climate change

‪Eun‐Sung Chung, Seung Taek Chae
13 citations
Journal of Hydrology Regional Studies
Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
2.62
article

Significant contribution of bias correction methods to uncertainty in future runoff projections under CMIP6 climate change

‪Eun‐Sung Chung, Seung Taek Chae
article en
13 citations

Abstract

Mokgam River watershed, South Korea In this study, the uncertainty contribution of three sources and their interaction effects on future climate and runoff projections were quantified. General circulation models (GCMs), shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs), and bias correction (BC) methods were considered as the three sources. 20 GCMs under four SSPs (SSP1–2.6, SSP2–4.5, SSP3–7.0, and SSP5–8.5) were used to project the future climate of the study area. Seven BC methods were used to adjust the GCMs’ daily climate data. The storm water management model (SWMM) was used as a hydrological model to simulate runoff, incorporating both natural and conduit flows according to GCMs’ climate projection. The normalized Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NNSE), normalized root mean square error (NRMSE), Kling-Gupta efficiency (KGE), and modified index of agreement (MD) were used to evaluate the performance of the GCMs’ climate simulations and the SWMM runoff simulations, which were based on the GCMs’ climate data. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) method was used to quantify the uncertainty. The results showed that the assumptions of the BC method had a significant impact on the variation in climate and runoff projections. In the uncertainty of future climate and runoff projection results, BC methods exhibited the predominant contribution, while SSPs showed the least contribution. However, the uncertainty contribution from SSPs and GCMs was predominant in temperature projections, and these results could vary depending on the assumptions and the number of BC methods used. Overall, this study emphasizes not only the influence of GCMs but also the impact of BC methods on future climate and runoff projections. • Uncertainty contribution of three sources on climate and runoff projections. • Analysis of variance method was used to quantify uncertainty contribution. • Highlighted the impact of bias correction methods on uncertainty in climate and runoff projection.

Journal of Hydrology Regional StudiesVol. 56
Ministry of Environment, National Research Foundation of Korea, Korea Environmental Industry and Technology Institute
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
2.62
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Significant contribution of bias correction methods to uncertainty in future runoff projections under CMIP6 climate change — ‪Eun‐Sung Chung, Seung Taek Chae · Journal of Hydrology Regional Studies (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS