Examining why trends in very heavy precipitation should not be mistaken for trends in very high river discharge
- 1.1k Downloads
It is firmly established in the hydrologic literature that flooding depends on both antecedent watershed wetness and precipitation. One could phrase this relationship as “heavy precipitation does not necessarily lead to high stream discharge”, but rarely do studies directly affirm this statement. We have observed several non-hydrologists mistake trends in heavy precipitation as a proxy for trends in riverine flooding. If the relationship between heavy precipitation and high discharge was more often explicitly presented, heavy precipitation may less often be misinterpreted as a proxy for discharge. In this paper, we undertake such an analysis for 390 watersheds across the contiguous U.S. We found that 99th percentile precipitation only results in 99th percentage discharge 36 % of the time. However, when conditioned on soil moisture from the Variable Infiltration Capacity model, 62 % of 99th percentile precipitation results in 99th percentile discharge during wet periods and only 13 % during dry periods. When relating trends in heavy precipitation to hydrologic response, precipitation data should, therefore, be segregated based on concurrent soil moisture. Taking this approach for climate predictions, we found that CMIP-5 atmosphere–ocean global circulation model (AOGCM) simulations for a RCP 6.0 forcing project increases in concurrence of greater than median soil wetness and extreme precipitation in the northern United States and a decrease in the south, suggesting northern regions could see an increase in very high discharges while southern regions could see decreases despite both regions having an increase in extreme precipitation. While the actual outcome is speculative given the uncertainties of the AOGCM’s, such an analysis provides a more sophisticated framework from which to evaluate the output as well as historic climate data.
KeywordsSoil Moisture High Discharge Extreme Precipitation Heavy Precipitation Heavy Precipitation Event
We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP 5, and we thank the climate modeling groups for producing and making available their model output at http://pcmdi9.llnl.gov/esgf-web-fe. We also acknowledge NOAA’s National Weather Services’ Hydrologic Modeling division which is responsible for the MOPEX project. These data are available at ftp://hydrology.nws.noaa.gov/pub/gcip/mopex/US_Data/Us_438_Daily/. Finally we acknowledge the University of Washington VIC group who provided the soil moisture data available at http://jisao.washington.edu/data/vic/.
- Georgakakos A et al (2014) Ch. 3: Water Resources. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global Change Research Program, 69–112, doi: 10.7930/J0G44N6T
- Latifovic R et al (2002) Landcover of North America 2000. Natural Resources Canada, Canada Center for Remote Sensing, US Geological Service EROS Data CenterGoogle Scholar
- Li H, Luo L, Wood EF, Schaake J (2009) The role of initial conditions and forcing uncertainties in seasonal hydrologic forecasting. J Geophys Res 114:D04114Google Scholar
- Smith JA et al (2013) Extreme flood response: the June 2008 flooding in Iowa. J Hydrometeorol 14:110–1825Google Scholar
- Villarini G, Smith JA (2010) Flood peak distributions for the eastern United States. Water Resour Res 46:W06504Google Scholar
- Walsh J et al (2014) Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. In: Melillo J M, Terese T C, Richmond, Yohe G W (eds) U.S. Global Change Research Program, 19–67, doi: 10.7930/J0KW5CXT