Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 6 of 6 items for :

  • Integrated Watershed-Scale Response to Climate Change in Selected Basins across the United States x
  • All content x
Clear All
P. C. D. Milly and Krista A. Dunne

1. Introduction Climate-change experiments with numerical climate models produce projections of changes in the water cycle. These projections include changes in fluxes (precipitation, evapotranspiration, and runoff) and storage (snowpack, soil water, and groundwater). The value of these projections for long-term water-resource planning and risk analysis is compromised by many factors, but here we focus on three problems: 1) the biases in the modeled historical climates, 2) the coarse

Full access
John Risley, Hamid Moradkhani, Lauren Hay, and Steve Markstrom

distributed watershed models that simulate streamflow in addition to various water and energy fluxes within a basin. Dibike and Coulibaly ( Dibike and Coulibaly 2005 ) compared two statistical downscaling and hydrologic modeling techniques to simulate runoff in a watershed in northern Quebec, Canada. Both downscaling methods resulted in increased winter low flow and earlier spring high flows, which was consistent with reduced freezing and increasing trends in temperature and snowmelt. Downscaled data from

Full access
Mark C. Mastin, Katherine J. Chase, and R. W. Dudley

hydrologic processes is attained by partitioning the basin into HRUs, which are units of land in the basin with similar runoff response to climate forcing. A water and energy balance is computed for each HRU by accounting for surface, soil zone, subsurface, and groundwater storages and fluxes. On each HRU, the model simulates initiation, accumulation, and depletion of a two-layered snowpack. Daily outputs of SWE and SCA for each of the HRUs were stored for each model run. Climate-change fields

Full access
Roland J. Viger, Lauren E. Hay, Steven L. Markstrom, John W. Jones, and Gary R. Buell

, the simulation results show that streamflow is highly sensitive to changes in forecasted precipitation, whose uncertainty is large. The climate-change-only columns of Table 3 present data that are consistent with the visual interpretation made above. Streamflow increases under all scenarios, although this change is not significant in the SRESB1 (“best case”) scenario. The rate of decrease in streamflow is larger with the SRESA2 (“worst case”) scenario. All the fluxes, except evapotranspiration

Full access
David M. Bjerklie, Thomas J. Trombley, and Roland J. Viger

hydrologic processes because it simulates surface, soil, subsurface, and groundwater storage flux; runoff; snow cover and snowmelt; and a large number of other hydrologic variables on a daily time step. PRMS can be used to understand spatial variation of the hydrologic responses over large areas as well. It can be parameterized at a wide range of scales with any discretization scheme for subdividing the modeled region. PRMS simulations are based on the spatial variation in measurable physical

Full access
Lauren E. Hay, Steven L. Markstrom, and Christian Ward-Garrison

calibration of a model’s simulation of SR, PET, and water balance. This process ensures that intermediate model fluxes as well as the water balance are simulated consistently with measured values (see Hay et al. 2006c ). Reliably reproducing the baseline period is important because any biases are likely to transfer to the future simulations of flow ( Prudhomme and Davies 2009 ). Assessments of maximum and minimum temperature and precipitation baseline conditions (mean monthly baseline conditions; WYs

Full access