Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Examining why trends in very heavy precipitation should not be mistaken for trends in very high river discharge

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Berthet L, Andreassian V, Perrin C, Javelle P (2009) How crucial is it to account for antecedent moisture conditions in flood forecasting? Comparison of event-based on continuous approaches on 178 catchments. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 13:819–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeGaetano AT (2009) Time-dependent changes in extreme-precipitation return-period amounts in the continental United States. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 48:2086–2099. doi:10.1175/2009JAMC2179.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirmeyer PA, Fang G, Wang Z, Yadav P, Milton A (2014) Climate change and sectors of the surface water cycle in CMIP5 projections. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18:5317–5329. doi:10.5194/hess-18-5317-2014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas EM, Vogel RM, Kroll CN (2000) Trends in floods and low flows in the United States: impact of spatial correlation. J Hydrol 240:90–105. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00336-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duan Q et al (2006) Model parameter estimation experiment (MOPEX): an overview of science strategy and major results from the second and third workshops. J Hydrol 320:3–17. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunkerley D (2012) Effects of rainfall intensity fluctuation on infiltration and runoff: rainfall simulation on dryland soils, Fowlers Gap, Australia. Hydrol Process 26:2211–2224. doi:10.1002/hyp.8371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Groisman PY, Knight RW, Karl TR (2001) Heavy precipitation and high streamflow in the contiguous United States: trends in the twentieth century. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 82:219–246. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<0219:HPAHSI>2.3.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groisman PY, Knight RW, Karl TR (2012) Changes in intense precipitation over the central United States. J Hydrometeorol 13:47–66. doi:10.1175/JHM-D-11-039.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch RM, Ryberg KR (2012) Has the magnitude of floods across the USA changed with global CO2 levels? Hydrol Sci J 57(1):1–9. doi:10.1080/02626667.2011.621895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karl TR, Knight RW (1998) Secular trends of precipitation amount, frequency, and intensity in the United States. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 79:231–241. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079<0231:STOPAF>2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koirala S, Hirabayashi Y, Mahendran R, Kanae S (2014) Global assessment of agreement among streamflow projections using CMIP5 model outputs. Environ Res Lett 9(2014):064017. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latifovic R et al (2002) Landcover of North America 2000. Natural Resources Canada, Canada Center for Remote Sensing, US Geological Service EROS Data Center

  • 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:D04114

    Google Scholar 

  • Lins HF, Cohn TA (2011) Stationarity: wanted dead or alive? J Am Water Resour Assoc 47:475–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallakpour I, Villarini G (2015) The changing nature of flooding across the central United States. Nat Clim Chang 2:250–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massari C, Brocca L, Moramarco T, Tramblay Y, Didon-Lescot JD (2014) Potential of soil moisture observations in flood modelling: estimating initial conditions and correcting rainfall. Adv Water Resour 74:44–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurer EP, Wood AW, Adam JC, Lettenmaier DP, Nijssen B (2002) A long-term hydrologically-based data set of land surface fluxes and states for the conterminous United States. J Clim 15:3237–3251. doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<3237:ALTHBD>2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radatz TF, Thompson AM, Madison FW (2013) Soil moisture and rainfall intensity thresholds for runoff generation in southwestern Wisconsin agricultural watersheds. Hydrol Process 27:3521–3534. doi:10.1002/hyp.9460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw SB, Riha SJ (2011) Assessing possible changes in flood frequency due to climate change in mid-sized watersheds in New York State, USA. Hydrol Process 25:2542–2550. doi:10.1002/hyp.8027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small D, Islam S, Vogel RM (2006) Trends in precipitation and streamflow in the eastern U.S.: paradox or perception? Geophys Res Lett 33:L03403. doi:10.1029/2005GL024995

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith JA et al (2013) Extreme flood response: the June 2008 flooding in Iowa. J Hydrometeorol 14:110–1825

    Google Scholar 

  • Tramblay Y, Bouvier C, Martin C, Didon-Lescot J-F, Todorovik D, Domergue J-M (2010) Assessment of initial soil moisture conditions for event-based rainfall-runoff modeling. J Hydrol 387:176–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Steenbergen N, Willems P (2013) Increasing river preparedness by real-time warning based on wetness state conditions. J Hydrol 489:227–237. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.03.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villarini G, Smith JA (2010) Flood peak distributions for the eastern United States. Water Resour Res 46:W06504

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel RM, Yaindl C, Walter M (2011) Nonstationarity: flood magnification and recurrence reduction factors in the United States. J Am Water Resour Assoc 47:464–474

    Article  Google 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

Download references

Acknowledgments

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/.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy J. Ivancic.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ivancic, T.J., Shaw, S.B. Examining why trends in very heavy precipitation should not be mistaken for trends in very high river discharge. Climatic Change 133, 681–693 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1476-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1476-1

Keywords

Navigation