The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A COMPARISON OF DELTA CHANGE AND DOWNSCALED GCM SCENARIOS FOR THREE MOUNTAINOUS BASINS IN THE UNITED STATES1
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Simulated daily precipitation, temperature, and runoff time series were compared in three mountainous basins in the United States: (1) the Animas River basin in Colorado, (2) the East Fork of the Carson River basin in Nevada and California, and (3) the Cle Elum River basin in Washington State. Two methods of climate scenario generation were compared: delta change and statistical downscaling. The delta change method uses differences between simulated current and future climate conditions from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (HadCM2) General Circulation Model (GCM) added to observed time series of climate variables. A statistical downscaling (SDS) model was developed for each basin using station data and output from the National Center for Environmental Prediction/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEPINCAR) reanalysis regridded to the scale of HadCM2. The SDS model was then used to simulate local climate variables using HadCM2 output for current and future conditions. Surface climate variables from each scenario were used in a precipitation‐runoff model. Results from this study show that, in the basins tested, a precipitation‐runoff model can simulate realistic runoff series for current conditions using statistically down‐scaled NCEP output. But, use of downscaled HadCM2 output for current or future climate assessments are questionable because the GCM does not produce accurate estimates of the surface variables needed for runoff in these regions. Given the uncertainties in the GCMs ability to simulate current conditions based on either the delta change or downscaling approaches, future climate assessments based on either of these approaches must be treated with caution.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Runoff conditions in the upper Danube basin under an ensemble of climate change scenarios
Kling, H., Fuchs, M., & Paulin, M. (2012) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.01.011 · Cited by 1,676
Diaz-Nieto, J., & Wilby, R. L. (2005) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-005-1157-6 · Cited by 494
Self-citationWilby, R. L., Hay, L. E., & Leavesley, G. H. (1999) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/s0022-1694(99)00136-5 · Cited by 396
Self-citationPrudhomme, C., & Davies, H. (2009) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9464-3 · Cited by 313
Burden of climate change on malaria mortality
Dasgupta, S. (2018) · International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health · doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.04.003 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Hay, L. E., Wilby, R. L., & Leavesley, G. H.
- Venue
- JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-04
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 387-397
- ISSN
- 1093-474X (ISSN-L)
- 1752-1688
- OpenAlex
- W1984129257
- Cited by
- 693
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A COMPARISON OF DELTA CHANGE AND DOWNSCALED GCM SCENARIOS FOR THREE MOUNTAINOUS BASINS IN THE UNITED STATES1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2000.tb04276.x
- The paper
- Hay, L. E., Wilby, R. L., & Leavesley, G. H. (2000). A COMPARISON OF DELTA CHANGE AND DOWNSCALED GCM SCENARIOS FOR THREE MOUNTAINOUS BASINS IN THE UNITED STATES1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2000.tb04276.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.