Spatiotemporal Variations of Precipitation and Temperatures Under CORDEX Climate Change Projections: A Case Study of Krishna River Basin, India

  • Shaik RehanaEmail author
  • Galla Sireesha Naidu
  • Nellibilli Tinku Monish


The Earth’s climate is not static; it changes according to the natural and anthropogenic climate variability. Anthropogenic forcing due to increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has driven changes in climate variables globally. Changes in climatological variables have severe impact on global hydrological cycle affecting the severity and occurrence of natural hazards such as floods and droughts. Estimation of projections under climate signals with statistical and dynamic downscaling models and integration with water resource management models for the impact assessment have gained much attention. The fine-resolution climate change predictions of dynamic regional climate model (RCM) outputs, which include regional parameterization, have been widely applied in the hydrological impact assessment studies. Advancement of the Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX) program has enabled the use of RCMs in regional impact assessment which has progressed in recent years. CORDEX model outputs were considered to be valuable in terms of establishing large ensembles of climate projections based on regional climate downscaling all over the world. However, the simulations of RCM outputs have to be evaluated to check the reliability in reproducing the observed climate variability over a region. The present study demonstrates the use of bias-corrected CORDEX model simulation in analyzing the regional-scale climatology at river basin scale, Krishna river basin (KRB), India. The precipitation and temperature simulations from CORDEX models with RCP 4.5 were evaluated for the historical data for the period of 1965 to 2014 with India Meteorological Department (IMD) gridded rainfall and temperature data sets cropped over the basin. The projected increase of precipitation under climate signals was predicted to be from 74.4 to 136.7 mm over KRB for the future time period of 2041–2060 compared to the observed periods of 1966–2003. About 1.06 °C to 1.35 °C of increase in temperatures was predicted for the periods of 2021–2040 and 2041–2060, respectively, compared to the observed period of 1966–2014 over KRB. The climate variable projections obtained based on RCM outputs can provide insights toward the variations of water-energy variables and consequent impact on basin yields and losses in river basin management.


Bias correction Dynamic downscaling Hydrology Regional circulation model (RCM) General circulation model (GCM) 



The research work presented in the manuscript is funded by Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), Department of Science and Technology, Government of India through Start-up Grant for Young Scientists (YSS) Project no. YSS/2015/002111.


  1. Anandhi A, Srinivas VV, Nanjundiah RS, Kumar DN (2008) Downscaling precipitation to river basin in India for IPCC SRES scenarios using support vector machine. Int J Climatol 28(3):401–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buontempo C, Mathison C, Jones R, William K, Wang C, Mcsweeney C (2015) An ensemble climate projection for Africa. Clim Dyn 44:2097–2118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen J, Brissette FP, Poulin A, Leconte R (2011) Overall uncertainty study of the hydrological impacts of climate change for a Canadian watershed. Water Resour Res 47:W12509. Scholar
  4. Cunderlik JM, Simonovic SP (2005) Hydrological extremes in a southwestern Ontario river basin under future climate conditions. Hydrol Sci 50(4):631–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Das J, Umamahesh NV (2018) Spatio-temporal variation of water availability in a River Basin under CORDEX simulated future projections. Water Resour Manag 32(4):1399–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dobler A, Ahrens B (2008) Precipitation by a regional climate model and bias correction in Europe and South Asia. Meteorol Z 17:499–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ehret U (2012) Should we apply bias correction to global and regional climate model data? Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 9:5355–5387.
  8. Feser F, Rockel B, Storch HV, Winterfeldt J, Zahn M (2011) Regional climate models add value to global model data: a review and selected examples. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 92(9):1181–1192. Scholar
  9. Fowler HJ, Blenkinsopa S, Tebaldi C (2007) Review linking climate change modelling to impacts studies: recent advances in downscaling techniques for hydrological modelling. Int J Climatol 27:1547–1578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ghosh S, Mujumdar PP (2008) Statistical downscaling of GCM simulations to streamflow using relevance vector machine. Adv Water Resour 31(1):132–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giorgetta MA et al (2013) Climate and carbon cycle changes from 1850 to 2100 in MPI-ESM simulations for the coupled model intercomparison project phase 5. J Adv Model Earth Syst 5:572–597. Scholar
  12. Giorgi F et al (2012) RegCM4: model description and preliminary tests over multiple CORDEX domains. Clim Res 52:7–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansen J, Ruedy R, Sato M, Lo K (2010) Global surface temperature change. Rev Geophys 48:RG4004. Scholar
  14. Hewitson BC, Crane RG (1992) Large-scale atmospheric controls on local precipitation in tropical Mexico. Geophys Res Lett 19(18):1835–1838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. In: Parry ML et al (eds) Contribution of working group II to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. IPCC (2014) In: Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel ES, Levy AN, MacCracken S, Mastrandrea PR, White LL (eds) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York. 1132 ppGoogle Scholar
  17. Kay AL, Davies HN, Bell VA, Jones RG (2009) Comparison of uncertainty sources for climate change impacts: flood frequency in England. Clim Change 92:41–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li H, Sheffield J, Wood EF (2010) Bias correction of monthly precipitation and temperature fields from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR4 models using equidistant quantile matching. J Geophys Res 115:D10101. Scholar
  19. Mcguffie K, Henderson-Sellers (1997) A climate modeling primer. John Wiley and Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  20. Mishra V, Shah R, Thrasher B (2014) Soil moisture droughts under the retrospective and projected climate in India. J Hydrometeorol 15:2267–2292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Racherla PN, Shindell DT, Faluvegi GS (2012) The added value to global model projections of climate change by dynamical downscaling: a case study over the continental U.S. using the GISSModelE2 and WRF models. J Geophys Res 117:D20118. Scholar
  22. Raje D, Mujumdar PP (2010) Reservoir performance under uncertainty in hydrologic impacts of climate change. Adv Water Resour 33(3):312–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rajeevan M, Bhate J (2009) A high resolution daily gridded rainfall dataset (1971–2005) for mesoscale meteorological studies. Curr Sci 96(4):558–562Google Scholar
  24. Rehana S, Mujumdar PP (2012) Climate change induced risk in water quality control problems. J Hydrol 444:63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rehana S, Mujumdar PP (2014) Basin scale water resources systems modeling under cascading uncertainties. Water Resour Manag 28(10):3127–3142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenzweig C, Solecki W, Hammer SA, Mehrotra S (2010) Cities lead the way in climate-change action. Nature 467:909–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Singh S, Ghosh S, Sahana AS, Vittal H, Karmakar S (2017) Do dynamic regional models add value to the global model projections of Indian monsoon? Clim Dyn 48:1375–1397. Scholar
  28. Srivastava AK, Rajeevan M, Kshirsagar SR (2009) Development of a high resolution daily gridded temperature data set (1969–2005) for the Indian region. Atmos Sci Lett 10:249–254. Scholar
  29. Sun L, Moncunill DF, Li H, Moura AD, Filho FDADS, Zebiak SE (2006) An operational dynamical downscaling prediction system for Nordeste Brazil and the 2002–04 real-time forecast evaluation. J Clim 19:1990–2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Teutschbein C, Wetterhall F, Seibert J (2011) Evaluation of different downscaling techniques for hydrological climate-change impact studies at the catchment scale. Clim Dyn 37(9–10):2087–2105. Scholar
  31. Tripathi S, Srinivas V, Nanjundiah R (2006) Downscaling of precipitation for climate change scenarios: a support vector machine approach. J Hydrol 330(3–4):621–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wilby RL, Charles SP, Zorita E, Timbal B, Whetton P, Mearns LO (2004) “The guidelines for use of climate scenarios developed from statistical downscaling methods.” In: Supporting material of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), prepared on behalf of Task Group on Data and Scenario Support for Impacts and Climate Analysis (TGICA). Available at:
  33. Wu CH, Huang GR, Yu HJ (2015) Prediction of extreme floods based on CMIP5 climate models: a case study in the Beijing River basin, South China. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 19:1385–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shaik Rehana
    • 1
    Email author
  • Galla Sireesha Naidu
    • 1
  • Nellibilli Tinku Monish
    • 1
  1. 1.Spatial InformaticsInternational Institute of Information TechnologyHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations