Articles | Volume 20, issue 8
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3245-2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3245-2016
Research article
 | 
10 Aug 2016
Research article |  | 10 Aug 2016

Sensitivity of future continental United States water deficit projections to general circulation models, the evapotranspiration estimation method, and the greenhouse gas emission scenario

Seungwoo Chang, Wendy D. Graham, Syewoon Hwang, and Rafael Muñoz-Carpena

Related authors

Evaluation of impacts of future climate change and water use scenarios on regional hydrology
Seungwoo Chang, Wendy Graham, Jeffrey Geurink, Nisai Wanakule, and Tirusew Asefa
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 4793–4813, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4793-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4793-2018, 2018
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Global hydrology | Techniques and Approaches: Uncertainty analysis
Information content of soil hydrology in a west Amazon watershed as informed by GRACE
Elias C. Massoud, A. Anthony Bloom, Marcos Longo, John T. Reager, Paul A. Levine, and John R. Worden
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1407–1423, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1407-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1407-2022, 2022
Short summary
Diagnostic evaluation of river discharge into the Arctic Ocean and its impact on oceanic volume transports
Susanna Winkelbauer, Michael Mayer, Vanessa Seitner, Ervin Zsoter, Hao Zuo, and Leopold Haimberger
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 279–304, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-279-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-279-2022, 2022
Short summary
The 63-year changes in annual streamflow volumes across Europe with a focus on the Mediterranean basin
Daniele Masseroni, Stefania Camici, Alessio Cislaghi, Giorgio Vacchiano, Christian Massari, and Luca Brocca
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5589–5601, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5589-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5589-2021, 2021
Short summary
Multivariable evaluation of land surface processes in forced and coupled modes reveals new error sources to the simulated water cycle in the IPSL (Institute Pierre Simon Laplace) climate model
Hiroki Mizuochi, Agnès Ducharne, Frédérique Cheruy, Josefine Ghattas, Amen Al-Yaari, Jean-Pierre Wigneron, Vladislav Bastrikov, Philippe Peylin, Fabienne Maignan, and Nicolas Vuichard
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2199–2221, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2199-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2199-2021, 2021
Implications of model selection: a comparison of publicly available, conterminous US-extent hydrologic component estimates
Samuel Saxe, William Farmer, Jessica Driscoll, and Terri S. Hogue
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1529–1568, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1529-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1529-2021, 2021
Short summary

Cited articles

Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M.: Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements, FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, 1998.
Asefa, T. and Adams, A.: Reducing bias-corrected precipitation projection uncertainties: a Bayesian-based indicator-weighting approach, Reg. Environ. Change, 13, 111–120, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0431-9, 2013.
Bae, D. H., Jung, I. W., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Hydrologic uncertainties in climate change from IPCC AR4 GCM simulations of the Chungju Basin, Korea, J. Hydrol., 401, 90–105, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.02.012, 2011.
Baker, N. C. and Huang, H.-P.: A Comparative Study of Precipitation and Evaporation between CMIP3 and CMIP5 Climate Model Ensembles in Semiarid Regions, J. Climate, 27, 3731–3749, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00398.1, 2014.
Bentsen, M., Bethke, I., Debernard, J. B., Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., Seland, Ø., Drange, H., Roelandt, C., Seierstad, I. A., Hoose, C., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: The Norwegian Earth System Model, NorESM1-M – Part 1: Description and basic evaluation of the physical climate, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 687–720, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-687-2013, 2013.
Download
Short summary
Projecting water deficit depends on how researchers combine possible future climate scenarios such as general circulation models (GCMs), evapotranspiration estimation method (ET), and greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Using global sensitivity analysis, we found the relative contribution of each of these factors to projecting future water deficit and the choice of ET estimation method are as important as the choice of GCM, and greenhouse gas emission scenario is less influential than the others.