Water yield responses to high and low spatial resolution climate change scenarios in the Missouri River Basin

Geophysical Research Letters

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2003, Pages

  Stone, Mark C ^a   Hotchkiss, Rollin H ^a   Mearns, Linda O ^b  

^a WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS; CLIMATE CHANGE; RIVER BASIN PROJECTS; CLIMATE MODELS; INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH; RAIN; WATER RESOURCES; WATERSHEDS;

WATER YIELDS; CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIOS; CLIMATE SCENARIOS; COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCHES; GENERAL CIRCULATION MODEL; LATERAL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS; REGIONAL CLIMATE MODELING; SOIL AND WATER ASSESSMENT TOOL; SPATIAL RESOLUTION;

GEOPHYSICS; CLIMATE CHANGE;

CLIMATE CHANGE; MODELING; WATER YIELD;

MISSOURI RIVER BASIN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0038504761     PISSN: 00948276     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1029/2002GL016122     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Arnold, J. G., R. Srinivasan, R. S. Muttiah, and J. R. Williams, Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment, part 1, Model development, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 34, 73 89, 1998.
2. Felzer, B., and P. Heard, Precipitation differences amongst GCMs used for the U. S. National Assessment, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 35, 1327 1339, 1999.
3. Giorgi, F., L. O. Mearns, C. Shields, and L. McDaniel, Regional nested model simulations of present day and 2 x CO2 climate over the central plains of the U. S., Clim. Change, 40, 457 493, 1998.
4. Hostetler, S., Hydrologic and atmospheric models: The (continuing) problem of discordant scales, Clim. Change, 27, 345 350, 1994.
5. Mearns, L. O., I. Bogardi, F. Giorgi, and I. Matyasovszky. Comparison of climate change scenarios generated from regional climate model experiments and statistical downscaling, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 6603 6622, 1999a.
6. Mearns, L. O., T. Mavromatis, E. Tsvetsinskaya, C. Hays, and W. Easterling, Comparative responses of EPIC and CERES crop models to high and low resolution climate change scenarios, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 6623 6646, 1999b.
7. Mearns, L. O., W. Easterling, and C. Hays, Comparison of agricultural impacts of climate change calculated from high and low resolution climate change scenarios, part 1. The uncertainty due to spatial scale, Clim. Change, 51, 131 172, 2001.
8. Mockus, V., Estimation of direct runoff from storm rainfall, in SCS National Engineering Handbook, sect. 4, Hydrology, Soil Conserv. Serv., 1972.
9. Shapiro, S. S., and M. B. Wilk, An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples), Biometrika, 52, 591 611, 1965.
10. Stone, M. C., R. H. Hotchkiss, C. M. Hubbard, T. A. Fontaine, L. O. Mearns, and J. G. Arnold, Impacts of climate change on Missouri River Basin water yield. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 37, 1119, 2001.
11. Thiessen, A. H., Precipitation for large areas, Mon. Weather, 1082 1084, 1911.
12. 2 climates simulated by the CSIRO general circulation model, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 23,113 23,129, 1998.
13. Watterson, I. G., S. P. O'Farrell, and M. R. Dix, Energy and water transport in climates simulated by a general circulation model that includes dynamic sea ice. J. Geophys. Res., 102, 11,027 11,037, 1997.
14. Wilby, R., and T. M. L. Wigley, Downscaling general circulation model output: A review of methods, Prog. Phys. Geogr., 21, 530 548, 1997.
15. Wilby, R., L. E. Hay, W. J. Gutowski, R. W. Arritt, E. S. Takle, Z. Pan. G. H. Leavesley, and M. P. Clark, Hydrologic responses to dynamically and statistically downscaled climate model output, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 1199 1202, 2000.