Muerth, Markus and Gauvin St-Denis, B. and Ricard, S. and Velázquez, J. A. and Schmid, J. and Minville, M. and Caya, D. and Chaumont, D. and Ludwig, R. and Turcotte, R.
On the need for bias correction in regional climate scenarios to assess climate change impacts on river runoff.
In climate change impact research, the assessment of future river runoff as well as the catchment scale water balance is impeded by different sources of modeling uncertainty.
Some research has already been done in order to quantify the uncertainty of climate 5 projections originating from the climate models and the downscaling techniques as well as from the internal variability evaluated from climate model member ensembles.
Yet, the use of hydrological models adds another layer of incertitude. Within the QBic3
project (Qu´ebec-Bavaria International Collaboration on Climate Change) the relative
contributions to the overall uncertainty from the whole model chain (from global climate 10 models to water management models) are investigated using an ensemble of multiple climate and hydrological models.
Although there are many options to downscale global climate projections to the regional
scale, recent impact studies tend to use Regional Climate Models (RCMs). One reason for that is that the physical coherence between atmospheric and land-surface 15 variables is preserved. The coherence between temperature and precipitation is of particular interest in hydrology. However, the regional climate model outputs often are biased compared to the observed climatology of a given region. Therefore, biases in those outputs are often corrected to reproduce historic runoff conditions from hydrological models using them, even if those corrections alter the relationship between temperature and precipitation. So, as bias correction may affect the consistency between RCM output variables, the use of correction techniques and even the use of (biased) climate model data itself is sometimes disputed among scientists. For those reasons, the effect of bias correction on simulated runoff regimes and the relative change in selected runoff indicators is explored. If it affects the conclusion of climate change analysis in 25 hydrology, we should consider it as a source of uncertainty. If not, the application of bias correction methods is either unnecessary in hydro-climatic projections, or safe to use as it does not alter the change signal of river runoff. The results of the present paper highlight the analysis of daily runoff simulated with four different hydrological models in two natural-flow catchments, driven by different regional climate models for a reference and a future period. As expected, bias correction of climate model outputs is important for the reproduction of the runoff regime of the 5 past regardless of the hydrological model used. Then again, its impact on the relative change of flow indicators between reference and future period is weak for most indicators with the exception of the timing of the spring flood peak. Still, our results indicate that the impact of bias correction on runoff indicators increases with bias in the climate simulations.