An Application of the Statistical DownScaling Model (SDSM) to

Simulate Climatic Data for Streamflow Modelling in Québec

Sébastien Gagnon, Bhawan Singh, Jean Rousselle and Luc Roy

Abstract: General Circulation Models (GCMs) are widely used tools to assess potential impacts of
global climate warming. However, their outputs are difficult to use in regional impact studies with regard
to water resources because of their coarse spatial resolution. Downscaling techniques have emerged as
useful tools to reduce the problem of discordant scales by deriving regional climate information from
global climate data. The objective of this study is to test the capability of one of these techniques, the
Statistical DownScaling Model (SDSM), to derive local scale temperature and precipitation data series
that can be used as inputs to a hydrologic model for streamflow modelling. Three river basins located
in the province of Québec are analyzed. Results show that the SDSM provides reasonable downscaling
data when using predictors representing the observed current climate. However, the performance is less
reliable when using GCM predictors.

Résumé : Les modèles de la circulation générale (MCG) sont des outils utilisés pour évaluer les impacts
potentiels du réchauffement climatique global. Cependant, il est difficile d’utiliser directement leurs
données dans le cadre d’études d’impacts régionales, tel que celles reliées aux ressources en eau, en
raison de leur résolution spatiale grossière. Le développement des techniques de réduction d’échelle
spatiale a permis de réduire le problème d’échelles discordantes en dérivant l’information du climat
régional à partir de données sur le climat global. L’objectif de cette étude est de tester la capacité d’une
de ces techniques, le Statistical DownScaling Model (SDSM), à fournir des données à échelle réduite
adéquates de température et de précipitation à un modèle hydrologique pour la modélisation des débits
en rivière. Trois bassins versants de la province de Québec sont à l’étude. Les résultats démontrent que
SDSM réduit raisonnablement l’échelle spatiale des données en utilisant les variables atmosphériques
à grande échelle représentant le climat actuel observé. Cependant, la performance diminue avec celles
simulées par un MCG.

Sébastien Gagnon1, Bhawan Singh1, Jean Rousselle2 and Luc Roy3

1
Département de géographie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC H3C 3J7
2
Département des génies civil, géologique et des mines, École Polytechnique de Montréal, Montréal, QC
H3C 3A7
3
Hydro-Québec, Unité Conception, Hydraulique et Géotechnique, Montréal, QC H2L 4P5

Submitted March 2005; accepted September 2005. Written comments will be accepted until June 2006.

Canadian Water Resources Journal Vol. 30(4): 297–314 (2005) © 2005 Canadian Water Resources Association
Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques
298 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques
Introduction
For many decades, scientists were concerned with the
possibility that the earth’s climate could be modified by
human activities such as fossil fuel burning, agriculture
and deforestation. During the 20th century, the global
surface temperature has increased by more than half
a degree Celsius and the 1990s was, on average, the
hottest decade for the last 1,000 years (IPCC, 2001).
Several studies show that the increase in temperature
cannot be entirely explained by natural climate
variations. For instance, Levitus et al. (2001) compared
global temperature data simulated by a General
Circulation Model (GCM) with those observed for
the second half of the 20th century. They showed that
a simulation based on both natural and anthropogenic
radiative forcing is in closer agreement with observed
data than one that only takes into account natural
climate variability.
GCMs are also used in global warming
impact studies with regard to water resources. The
combination of GCM outputs and hydrologic models
has been an approach commonly used during the last
decade to assess possible future hydrologic changes
of drainage basins (e.g., Roy et al., 2001; Loukas et
al., 2002; Whitfield et al., 2002). GCMs proved to
be efficient on the global scale. However, their use in
regional applications, such as river flow simulations
when coupled with hydrologic models, is limited by
their coarse spatial resolution. Downscaling techniques
have emerged as useful tools to reduce the problem
of discordant scales between coupled models. These
techniques can be classified into four groups: Regional
Climate Models (RCM), regression-based techniques,
weather patterns and stochastic weather generators.
The strengths and weaknesses of these techniques
are described in the literature (Giorgi et al., 2001).
Downscaling methods need to be tested prior to their
use in climate change studies.
This paper presents an application of a downscaling
approach developed in recent years, the Statistical
DownScaling Model (SDSM; Wilby et al., 2002).
The paper aims to test whether the SDSM is useful
in deriving adequate local climate data for streamflow
modelling from GCM information.
Study Area
The study area consists of three river basins located in
the province of Québec: Vermillon, Sainte-Marguerite
and Grande-Baleine (Figure 1). The distances between
these basins are large and they have different climatic,
hydrologic and geographic features. Grande-Baleine is
one of the main basins in northern Québec, where the
effects of climate change could be more important than
in southern areas. The Vermillon and Sainte-Marguerite
basins are used for hydroelectric power production. It
is likely that water resources and hydroelectric power
production could be affected by climatic change
(Robinson, 1997).
Data Used
Data from many sources are used throughout the
downscaling procedure. They are described prior to
the procedure itself.
1. Climate station data (predictands): For each basin,
temperature and precipitation series were extracted
for three stations from the Environment Canada
climatic database (Table 1). These stations have data
series covering the 1961-1990 period (the maximum
range permitted by SDSM) and have a minimum
of missing data. The choice was constrained by the
sparse station network in Québec.
2. Large-scale atmospheric variables (predictors):
Observed and modelled predictors come, respectively,
from the National Centre for Environmental
Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis (Kalnay et al., 1996)
and the first-generation Canadian GCM (CGCM1).
They were extracted for the grid point closest to
each climate station from the Canadian Institute for
Climate Studies (CICS) website (http://www.cics.
uvic.ca/scenarios). Table A1 (see Appendix) lists
available predictors.
3. Raw CGCM1 data: Unlike predictors, raw
surface temperature and precipitation data series
were extracted directly from the CGCM1 model for
comparison needs (downscaled versus raw).
© 2005 Canadian Water Resources Association
Gagnon, Singh, Rousselle and Roy 299

Figure 1. Location of river basins in the province of Québec.

4. Hydrologic data: The observed streamflow data Methodology

series for three hydrometric stations were extracted
from the HYDAT database provided by Environment
Canada. These stations are located at the outlet of
each selected basin (Table 2).
SDSM (Wilby et al., 2002) is a decision support tool
that facilitates the assessment of regional impacts of
global warming by allowing the process of spatial
scale reduction of data provided by large-scale GCMs.

© 2005 Canadian Water Resources Association

300 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

Table 1. Characteristics of climate stations.

Basin Station Lat. Long. Period of Missing Data (%)

Number (°,’ N) (°,’ W) Record Temp. Prec.
Climate Station
Vermillon

La Tuque 7074240 47 24 72 47 1961-1990 3.3 1.1

Barrage Mattawin 7040456 46 51 73 39 1961-1982 3.9 2.4
St-Michel-des-Saints 7077570 46 41 73 55 1967-1990 5.3 3.6

Sainte-Marguerite

Gagnon 7042590 51 57 68 08 1965-1985 5.1 4.7

Sept-Iles 7047910 50 13 66 16 1961-1990 0.2 0.2
Wabush Lake 8504175 52 56 66 52 1961-1990 0.6 0.6

Grande-Baleine

Kuujjuarapik 7103536 55 17 77 45 1961-1990 0.4 0.4

Nitchequon 7095480 53 12 70 54 1961-1985 0.4 0.4
Schefferville 7117825 54 48 66 49 1961-1990 0.6 0.6

Table 2. Characteristics of hydrometric stations.

Hydrometric Station Station Gauge Location Period of Total Basin Area

Number Latitude Longitude Record (km2)
(°,’ N) (°,’ W)
Vermillon 02ND001 47 39 72 57 1961-1984 2 670

Sainte-Marguerite 02UB002 50 13 66 39 1961-1987 6 140

Grande-Baleine 03ED001 55 14 76 59 1961-1990 36 300

Users are allowed to simulate, through combinations of
regressions and weather generators, sequences of daily
climatic data for present and future periods by extracting
statistical parameters from observed data series. The
stochastic component of SDSM permits the generation
of 100 simulations. Wilby et al. (1998; 1999) describe
the mathematical formulations of SDSM.
Table 3 summarizes the step-by-step procedure. The
‘Screening’ process is crucial for the creation of credible
downscaling scenarios. SDSM provides quantitative
tools to assist in choosing a realistic set of predictors,
even though local climate knowledge is part of best
practices. Monthly percentages of explained variance
show the capability of a given predictor to explain
local climate variability. Partial correlation coefficients
applied to the most suitable predictors help eliminate
those for which the weights are not important enough
to influence the regression equations.
The ‘Calibration’ step involves the establishment
of statistical relationships between the selected
predictors and the surface predictands. In this study,
12 regression models are created, that is, one for each
month (seasonal or annual models are possible). The
simulation process is conditional for precipitation, as

© 2005 Canadian Water Resources Association

Gagnon, Singh, Rousselle and Roy 301

Table 3. Summary of the methodology.

Step Description
1. Screening Selection of NCEP predictors related to the strength of each predictor – predictand relationship,
which is analyzed with monthly percentages of explained variance and partial correlation
coefficients.

2. Calibration Creation of monthly regression models using selected predictors. A simulation is performed using
the first half of each temperature/precipitation data series. A percentage of explained variance and
a value of standard error report the quality of the calibration, which is maximized with mean bias
correction and variance inflation parameters.

3. Validation Simulation of daily temperature/precipitation data series for the second half of each data series
with the calibrated regression models. t-tests and F-tests compare simulated and observed monthly
means and variances.

4. Climate scenario Simulation of daily temperature/precipitation data series for the whole 1961-1990 period with
both “observed” (NCEP) and modelled (CGCM1) predictors. Monthly means and variances are
compared using t-tests and F-tests. Raw CGCM1 temperature/precipitation data are used for
comparison of monthly residuals with downscaled data.

5. Hydrologic application Downscaled temperature and precipitation data series serve as inputs to the SSARR hydrologic
model for the simulation of streamflow hydrographs.

the amount for a given day is conditioned by the wet-
day occurrence, which acts as an intermediate variable.
Precipitation data are transformed (fourth root or
natural log) prior to calibration.
The stochastic component of SDSM allows for
performing 100 simulations in the ‘Validation’ process.
In this study, 20 simulations are performed and the
one that most closely fits the observed data is chosen.
The authors are aware that this approach is unusual.
Even though variations amongst simulations can be
important, the closest agreement is privileged. Some
limitations may arise from this approach, notably for
future scenarios, which have no observed equivalent. In
such case, the simulation has to be clearly representative
of the GCM’s predictions. The ‘Climate scenario’
procedure is similar, except that the whole 1961-1990
data series is used and that modelled predictors and
raw CGCM1 inputs are involved. For the sake of
conciseness, the study focuses on mean and variance
although other statistics (extreme values, percentage of
wet-days, etc.) could also be evaluated (see Gagnon,
2004).
To help visualize the performance of SDSM,
downscaled temperature and precipitation data
(from ‘Climate scenario’) are used as inputs for the
Streamflow Synthesis And Reservoir Regulation
(SSARR) hydrologic model. SSARR has low data
requirements and ease of use for the purpose of this
study. It is a conceptual model that requires only daily
temperature and precipitation data to perform long-
term continuous hydrologic simulations. The main
focus of this study being the SDSM software, SSARR
features are not described (see USACE, 1991).
SDSM allows for the simulation of future climate
scenarios, but this is not within the scope of this paper.
Results
Table A2 (see Appendix) shows screening results by
providing, for each climate station, partial correlation
coefficients associated with a series of predictors.
These predictors were chosen following a preliminary
analysis of monthly percentages of explained variance
for all available predictors. For surface temperature, the
regionalized temperature (temp) predictor presents the
highest correlation coefficients (from 0.738 to 0.857).
Thus, this predictor is the only variable selected for

© 2005 Canadian Water Resources Association

302 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

the following step (calibration). For precipitation, also modified for most of the stations, showing that the
correlation coefficients are always low (below ± 0.2). variance of precipitation was generally underestimated
Predictors selected for model calibration are bold in by SDSM.
Table A2.
Table 4 presents the results of the calibration at Table 5. Mean bias and variance inflation parameters.
each meteorological station by giving the percentage
of explained variance and the standard error. For Temperature Precipitation
temperature, the best and the worst performances are Basin
observed at Nitchequon (80.5%) and Sept-Iles (67.4%), Variance Mean Variance
respectively. For precipitation, these are seen at Sept- Climate Station Inflation* Bias* inflation*
Iles (48%) and Nitchequon (28.8%). Except for Sept-
Iles, percentages for precipitation are all under 40%. Vermillon

Table 4. Results of the calibration procedure. La Tuque 12 0.78 14

Barrage Mattawin 12 0.85 15
Temperature Precipitation St-Michel-des- 14 1 9
Saints
Basin Explained Standard Explained Standard
Variance Error Variance Error Sainte-Marguerite
Climate Station (%E) (°C) (%E) (mm)
Gagnon 8 1 13
Vermillon Sept-Iles 11 0.70 12
La Tuque 76.6 2.512 33.0 0.844 Wabush Lake 10 0.89 14
Barrage Mattawin 76.5 2.547 32.5 0.833
St-Michel-des- 78.1 2.755 35.9 0.824 Grande-Baleine
Saints
Kuujjuarapik 13 1 13
Sainte-Marguerite Nitchequon 10 1 13
Gagnon 72.6 2.983 35.6 0.823 Schefferville 12 0.85 18
Sept-Iles 67.4 2.293 48.0 0.829
Wabush Lake 76.0 2.646 37.6 0.806 * No units.

Grande-Baleine
Kuujjuarapik 74.7 2.938 31.2 0.773 Table 6 compares the performance of SDSM for
Nitchequon 80.5 2.538 28.8 0.781 simulating temperature for both validation and
Schefferville 72.1 2.840 38.3 0.777 climate scenario steps with t-tests (means) and F-tests
(variance). The numbers of months with a statistically
significant difference are indicated. Concerning
Table 5 shows the best combinations of mean bias validation, which involves the use of NCEP predictors,
correction and variance inflation parameters for most of the stations have a maximum of one significant
each station. For temperature, many stations have a difference in means, with the exception of Saint-
value of variance inflation lower or higher than 12, Michel-des-Saints (two differences). Results are even
indicating that the variance was first overestimated better for variance, as only one significant difference is
or underestimated by SDSM. There is no mean bias exhibited for Gagnon, Kuujjuarapik and Schefferville.
correction as temperature only involves an unconditional With regard to the climate scenario, which involves
process. For precipitation, which involves a conditional the use of CGCM1 predictors, the results are different
process, many stations required a reduction of the bias from those obtained following validation. Most of
correction parameter (lower than one), indicating a the stations exhibit a minimum of seven statistically
previously overestimated mean. Variance inflation was significant differences in means. The performance is

© 2005 Canadian Water Resources Association

Gagnon, Singh, Rousselle and Roy 303

especially significant at Gagnon and Sept-Iles, for Table 7. t-test and F-test results shown by statistically
which there is a difference for almost every month. significant differences for precipitation. Numbers
However, the variance simulation is similar in many indicate the number of cases where a significant
instances to the validation results. difference was found between monthly means (t-test)
and variances (F-test).
Table 6. t-test and F-test results shown by statistically
significant differences for temperature. Numbers Validation Climate Scenario
indicate the number of cases where a significant Basin
difference was found between monthly means (t-test) Mean Variance Mean Variance
and variances (F-test). Climate Station (n = 12) (n = 12) (n = 12) (n = 12)

Validation Climate Scenario Vermillon

Basin
Mean Variance Mean Variance La Tuque 0 0 0 2
Climate station (n = 12) (n = 12) (n = 12) (n = 12) Barrage Mattawin 1 1 4 1
St-Michel-des-Saints 2 1 3 2
Vermillon
Sainte-Marguerite
La Tuque 0 0 8 3
Barrage Mattawin 0 0 7 3 Gagnon 6 1 1 0
St-Michel-des-Saints 2 0 5 2 Sept-Iles 1 1 0 0
Wabush Lake 3 1 0 1
Sainte-Marguerite
Grande-Baleine
Gagnon 1 1 11 0
Sept-Iles 1 0 10 0 Kuujjuarapik 3 1 4 0
Wabush Lake 1 0 8 2 Nitchequon 4 1 0 1
Schefferville 0 2 3 2
Grande-Baleine

Kuujjuarapik 0 1 7 1
Nitchequon 1 0 8 0
Schefferville 1 1 8 1
Concerning precipitation, variance is generally well
reproduced for most months for both the validation
and climate scenario steps (Table 7). However, only
one station exhibits no significant differences for
validation (La Tuque). The t-tests show that SDSM
failed many times to reproduce means, as a minimum
of three significant differences are observed at many
stations for both steps.
As shown in Table 6, t-tests revealed many
significant differences in temperature means (‘Climate
scenario’), with some differences having important
implications. Table 8 presents a comparison of
temperatures at the start of the snowmelt season,
which is of paramount importance in streamflow
modelling in northern basins. It can be seen that the
30 year-averaged temperatures are lower (below 0°C),
for all stations, when SDSM uses CGCM1 instead
of NCEP predictors. Temperatures generated using
NCEP predictors are closer to reality.
In order to test the ability of SDSM to
realistically downscale GCM data, a comparison is
made between downscaled (with CGCM1 predictors)
and raw CGCM1 data and the new “observed” series
(downscaled with NCEP predictors) for the 1961-
1990 period. Figure 2 shows the mean monthly
temperature residuals for three representative
stations, one in each of the selected basins. The
graphs do not show the sign (positive or negative)
of the residuals, as they only aim at showing whether
downscaled data are closer to reality than raw data.
According to these results, SDSM adequately
performed the task of downscaling temperature, as

© 2005 Canadian Water Resources Association

304 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

most of the downscaled data residuals are lower than
those of raw CGCM1 data. This is also generally
true for precipitation residuals for the same stations
(Figure 3). Nonetheless, these data are mean monthly
values. Other results (Tables 6 and 7) showed that
the distribution of downscaled variables using SDSM
may be statistically different from observed data.
This is due to the difference in temperature (Table 8).
The overestimated magnitude of peak flows is caused
by the accumulation of snow that was supposed to fall
as rain. Nonetheless, the main limiting factor for these
two basins appears to be the poor simulation of spring
temperature.

Table 8. Comparison of average temperatures at the Discussion

start of the snowmelt season (1961-1990).
Choice of Predictors
Basin Start of the Tobserved TNCEP TCGCM1
Snowmelt (°C) (°C) (°C) In regression-based downscaling techniques, the choice
Climate Station Season (Period of predictors remains one of the most challenging
of issues, as different sets of predictors will likely give
Record) different results. In SDSM, the choice is made using
quantitative tests (explained variance and partial
Vermillon correlation). However, the procedure contains a certain
level of subjectivity, as user’s judgement is required
La Tuque April 3.5 3.4 -0.9 to decide whether a predictor is significant enough
Barrage Mattawin April 1.7 2.2 -1.6 to avoid rejection. For instance, in the present study,
St-Michel-des-Saints April 2.7 1.6 -3.2 the choice of predictors was stringent and only one
predictor was chosen for temperature. Others could use
Sainte-Marguerite less stringent criteria and include more predictors (e.g.,
the acceptance of predictors with partial correlation
Gagnon May 3.7 3.6 -0.8 coefficients lower than 0.4). For precipitation, choices
Sept-Iles April -0.1 0.5 -3.3 of predictors were similar (essentially specific humidity
Wabush Lake May 3.0 2.8 -1.0 and meridional velocity component) to those of Dibike
and Coulibaly (2005), who tested SDSM for a different
Grande-Baleine Québec basin. This similarity suggests that the choice
of predictors was adequate.
Kuujjuarapik May 1.2 1.7 -2.6 A possible solution to further reduce the level
Nitchequon May 1.8 2.0 -2.0 of subjectivity is the use of stepwise regression, as
Schefferville May 1.0 0.6 -2.6 suggested by Hessami et al. (2004) in their eastern
Canada application. They initially included all
available predictors in the regression model and the
Figure 4 presents mean monthly streamflow least significant term was eliminated at every step
hydrographs resulting from the use of daily downscaled until the remaining terms were statistically significant.
temperature and precipitation series as inputs to the This solution does not, however, address the issue of
SSARR model along with observed daily streamflow whether the choice has physical meaning.
data (also aggregated in the figure). The poor The preliminary selection of predictors (screening)
performance of SDSM using CGCM1 predictors is regardless of seasonal variations constitutes a key
obvious. For the Vermillon basin (Figure 4a), the shape shortcoming of SDSM. It should be possible to select
of the hydrograph is well reproduced, but the peak flow predictors on a monthly or a seasonal basis to capture
in particular, and the whole hydrograph in general, are intra-annual variations (e.g., different predictors for
underestimated. In this case, precipitation is a more January and February regression models). As well,
limiting factor than temperature. However, for the a given predictor – predictand relationship can be
Sainte-Marguerite and Grande-Baleine basins (Figure strong in winter and weak in summer. Busuioc et al.
4b and 4c), a lag in the spring peak flow is observed. (2001) showed by using canonical correlation that the

© 2005 Canadian Water Resources Association

Gagnon, Singh, Rousselle and Roy 305

Figure 2. Mean monthly temperature residuals (1961-1990) of downscaled

(CGCM1/SDSM) and raw (CGCM1 raw) data compared to the new “observed”
series: a) St-Michel-des-Saints (Vermillon basin), b) Gagnon (Sainte-Marguerite
basin) and c) Kuujjuarapik (Grande-Baleine basin).

© 2005 Canadian Water Resources Association

306 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

Figure 3. Mean monthly precipitation residuals (1961-1990) of downscaled

(CGCM1/SDSM) and raw (CGCM1 raw) data compared to the new “observed”
series: a) St-Michel-des-Saints (Vermillon basin), b) Gagnon (Sainte-Marguerite
basin) and c) Kuujjuarapik (Grande-Baleine basin).

© 2005 Canadian Water Resources Association

Gagnon, Singh, Rousselle and Roy 307

Figure 4. Mean monthly streamflow hydrographs (see Table 2 for the exact time
period): a) Vermillon, b) Sainte-Marguerite, and c) Grande-Baleine basins.

© 2005 Canadian Water Resources Association

308 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques
percentage of explained variance for precipitation in
Sweden could vary seasonally, for a single station, from
3% to 72%. A monthly/seasonal selection of predictors
could improve the calibration procedure and thus the
performance in downscaling surface weather variables.
Model Calibration
The credibility of SDSM in providing fair downscaled
temperature and precipitation data relies on the quality
of the model calibration, which is described with
percentages of explained variance. It is obvious that
these percentages are higher for temperature, which
is more spatially conservative than precipitation. As
well, these are very low for precipitation (< 40%).
Nonetheless, these results are similar to those of
previous studies. Wilby et al. (2002) used SDSM for
Toronto and obtained values of 73% and 72% for
maximum and minimum temperatures, and 28% for
precipitation. Wilby et al. (1998) applied the SDSM
algorithm in mountainous regions of Japan and
obtained seasonal values varying from 70% to 90% for
temperature, and from 15% to 45% for precipitation.
Nguyen et al. (2004) tested the SDSM model in the
Greater Montréal region and obtained values between
71% and 79% for temperature, and between 6% and
10% for precipitation.
Variance Inflation Parameter
With regard to the results, it is interesting to note that
SDSM performs better in simulating variances than
means for both the validation and climate scenario
simulations. This differs from what is commonly
observed with stochastic models (recall that SDSM
has a stochastic component). This is likely due to
the variance inflation parameter. Furthermore, many
studies that compared stochastic weather generators
showed that means are generally best reproduced (e.g.,
Hayhoe and Stewart, 1996; Semenov et al., 1998).
The use of inflation techniques, as in SDSM, has been
questioned (von Storch, 1999).
Propagation of Errors
Another issue relevant to studies involving climate
model – hydrologic model coupling is the propagation
of errors through the various steps. One should note
that no streamflow hydrographs were performed using
NCEP predictors-based data, in order to look at the
errors attributed to each model (SDSM, CGCM1,
SSARR). It is important to recall that the study aims
at analyzing the ability of SDSM to provide fairly
downscaled meteorological inputs to the SSARR
model and not at demonstrating the weaknesses of
SSARR.
The results show that a large amount of error is due
to unrealistic representation of CGCM1 predictors. It is
clearly shown that SDSM performed better using NCEP
predictors than CGCM1 predictors when looking
at temperature mean and variance results. The main
cause of the large discrepancies between the observed
and simulated spring flow peaks (lagged and higher
peaks), as seen on the Sainte-Marguerite and Grande-
Baleine hydrographs, is likely to be deficiencies in the
CGCM1 land-surface scheme. An example deficiency
is referred to as the 0°C-threshold effect (Laprise et
al., 1998), which affects temperatures at transitional
spring and fall seasons. Preliminary sensitivity analyses
showed that discarding the temperature (temp)
predictor and choosing different predictors gave better
agreement for spring temperatures. However, given
the strength of the partial correlation coefficients of
the temp variable, it would not make sense to remove
it. The large discrepancies between flow peaks cannot
be entirely explained by SDSM’s poor representation
of precipitation nor by SSARR deficiencies.
Providing a NCEP predictors-based hydrograph
would be essential if the 0°C-threshold effect was
not so important. Nonetheless, the use of predictors
from other GCMs could confirm whether CGCM1
predictors are the main problem. HadCM3
predictors became available for SDSM use after
the completion of the present study. Comparisons
between HadCM3 and CGCM1 predictors should
be performed in the future.
It is difficult to establish whether Dibike and
Coulibaly (2005) observed such spring temperature
biases in their SDSM application involving another
Québec basin. Their hydrographs were validated
with observed climate data but not with CGCM1
predictors-based data. Moreover, they compared
© 2005 Canadian Water Resources Association
Gagnon, Singh, Rousselle and Roy
residuals between observed and NCEP predictors-
based data (‘Validation’), but not between the latter and
CGCM1 predictors-based data (‘Climate scenario’), as
performed in the present study.
Conclusions
The use of SDSM to downscale climatic data for
streamflow modelling in the province of Québec is
proposed. Results show that SDSM provides adequate
downscaled temperature and precipitation data when
using predictors representing the observed current
climate (NCEP predictors). When using CGCM1
predictors, the SDSM performance deteriorates and
causes temperatures at the start of the snowmelt season
to be lower than observed, which results in lagged peak
flows with greater magnitude for two northern Québec
basins. This is likely due to deficiencies in the CGCM1
land-surface scheme during the transitional spring and fall
seasons. It is recommended to use predictors from other
GCMs, which were unavailable at the time of the study, in
order to confirm this argument. The choice of predictors
is identified as a shortcoming, as the preliminary selection
is made regardless of seasonal variations. The process also
contains a certain amount of subjectivity.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency for funding
support. The SDSM 2.2 software was supplied by Drs.
Wilby and Dawson, on behalf of the UK Environment
Agency. Mr. Steven Weyman of Hydro-Québec is
acknowledged for his interest in the Master’s Thesis of
the first author. The three reviewers and the Associate
Editor are acknowledged for their constructive
comments to the initial version of this paper.
References
Busuioc, A., D. Chen and C. Hellstrom. 2001.
“Performance of Statistical Downscaling Models
in GCM Validation and Regional Climate Change
Estimates: Application for Swedish Precipitation.”
International Journal of Climatology, 21: 557-578.
309
Dibike, Y.B. and P. Coulibaly. 2005. “Hydrologic
Impact of Climate Change in the Saguenay Watershed:
Comparison of Downscaling Methods and Hydrologic
Models.” Journal of Hydrology, 307: 145-163.
Gagnon, S. 2004. Impacts potentiels d’une hausse des
concentrations atmosphériques des gaz à effet de serre sur
le comportement hydrologique de trois bassins versants
du Québec. M.Sc. Thesis, Université de Montréal,
Montréal, QC.
Giorgi, F., B. Hewitson and 55 others. 2001. “Regional
Climate Information – Evaluation and Projections.” In
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. IPCC TAR,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and
New York, NY.
Hayhoe, H.N. and D.W. Stewart. 1996. “Evaluation
of CLIGEN and WXGEN Weather Data Generators
under Canadian Conditions.” Canadian Water Resources
Journal, 21: 53-67.
Journal
Hessami, M., T.B.M.J. Ouarda, P. Gachon, A. St-
Hilaire, F. Selva and B. Bobée. 2004. “Evaluation of a
Statistical Downscaling Method over Several Regions
of Eastern Canada.” In Proceedings of the 57th Annual
Conference of the Canadian Water Resources Association,
Montréal, QC, June 16-18 2004, 9 p.
IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and
New York, NY.
Kalnay, E., M. Kanamitsu and 20 others. 1996. “The
NCEP/NCAR 40-year Reanalysis Project.” Bulletin of
the American Meteorological Society, 77: 437-471.
Laprise, R., D. Caya, M. Giguère, G. Bergeron, H.
Côté, J.P. Blanchet, G.J. Boer and N.A. McFarlane.
1998. “Climate and Climate Change in Western
Canada as Simulated by the Canadian Regional
Climate Model.” Atmosphere-Ocean, 36: 119-167.
Levitus, S., J.I. Antonov, J. Wang, T.L. Delworth,
K.W. Dixon and A.J. Broccoli. 2001. “Anthropogenic
Warming of Earth’s Climate System.” Science, 292:
267-290.
© 2005 Canadian Water Resources Association
310 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

Loukas, A., L. Vasiliades and N.R. Dalezios. 2002.
“Potential Climate Change Impacts on Flood
Producing Mechanisms in British Columbia, Canada,
Using the CGCMA1 Simulation Results.” Journal of
Hydrology, 259: 163-188.
Wilby, R.L., L.E. Hay and G.H. Leavesley. 1999. “A
Comparison of Downscaled and Raw GCM Output:
Implications for Climate Change Scenarios in the San
Juan River Basin, Colorado.” Journal of Hydrology, 225:
67-91.

Nguyen, T.D., V.T.V. Nguyen, P. Gachon and Wilby, R.L., C.W. Dawson and E.M. Barrow. 2002.
A. Bourque. 2004. “An Assessment of Statistical “SDSM – A Decision Support Tool for the Assessment
Downscaling Methods for Generating Daily of Regional Climate Change Impacts.” Environmental
Precipitation and Temperature Extremes in the Greater Modelling & Software, 17: 147-159.
Montreal Region.” In Proceedings of the 57th Annual
Conference of the Canadian Water Resources Association,
Montréal, QC, June 16-18, 2004, 10 p.

Robinson, P.J. 1997. “Climate Change and Hydropower

Generation.” International Journal of Climatology, 17:
983-996.

Roy, L., R. Leconte, F.P. Brissette and C. Marche.

2001. “The Impact of Climate Change on Seasonal
Floods of a Southern Quebec River Basin.” Hydrological
Processes, 15: 3167-3179.

Semenov, M.A., R.J. Brooks, E.M. Barrow and C.W.

Richardson. 1998. “Comparison of the WGEN and
LARS-WG Stochastic Weather Generators for
Diverse Climates.” Climate Research, 10: 95-107.

USACE. 1991. SSARR Model, Streamflow Synthesis And

Reservoir Regulation. User Manual. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, North Pacific Division, Portland, OR.

von Storch, H. 1999. “On the Use of ‘Inflation’ in

Statistical Downscaling.” Journal of Climate, 12: 3505-
3506.

Whitfield, P.H., C.J. Reynolds and A.J. Cannon.

2002. “Modelling Streamflow in Present and Future
Climates: Examples from the Georgia Basin, British
Columbia.” Canadian Water Resources Journal
Journal, 27: 427-
456.

Wilby, R.L., H. Hassan and K. Hanaki. 1998.

“Statistical Downscaling of Hydrometeorological
Variables Using General Circulation Model Output.”
Journal of Hydrology, 205: 1-19.

© 2005 Canadian Water Resources Association

Gagnon, Singh, Rousselle and Roy 311

Appendix

Table A1. List of available predictors.

Predictor Symbol
Surface 500 hPa 850 hPa

Mean sea level pressure mslp

Mean temperature at 2 m temp

Relative humidity rhum

Specific humidity sphu s500 s850

Geopotential height p500 p850

Airflow strength p_f p5_f p8_f

Zonal velocity p_u p5_u p8_u

Meridional velocity p_v p5_v p8_v

Vorticity p_z p5_z p8_z

Wind direction p_th p5th p8th

Divergence p_zh p5zh p8zh

© 2005 Canadian Water Resources Association

312 Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques

Table A2. Selection of predictors using partial correlations.

Basin Temperature Precipitation

Station Predictor Partial r p value Predictor Partial r p value

Vermillon
La Tuque p500 0.133 0.0000 p_v 0.064 0.0000
s850 -0.145 0.0000 p_zh 0.004 0.5236
sphu 0.081 0.0000 p8_v 0.061 0.0000
temp 0.738 0.0000 p8zh 0.008 0.3901
s500 0.111 0.0000

Barrage Mattawin p500 0.289 0.0000 p_v 0.039 0.0012

s850 -0.167 0.0000 p8_v 0.052 0.0000
sphu 0.065 0.0000 p8zh 0.009 0.3935
temp 0.786 0.0000 s500 0.109 0.0000
s850 0.062 0.0000

St-Michel-des-Saints p500 0.127 0.0000 p_v 0.042 0.0003

s850 -0.009 0.3845 p8_v 0.057 0.0000
sphu -0.020 0.0994 p8zh 0.002 0.5553
temp 0.795 0.0000 s500 0.109 0.0000
s850 0.051 0.0000

Sainte-Marguerite
Gagnon p500 0.291 0.0000 p_v 0.072 0.0000
s850 -0.159 0.0000 p8_v 0.083 0.0000
sphu 0.025 0.0600 s500 0.161 0.0000
temp 0.795 0.0000

Sept-Iles p500 0.100 0.0000 p_v 0.044 0.0000

s850 -0.082 0.0000 p_zh 0.036 0.0004
sphu -0.115 0.0000 p5_v 0.075 0.0000
temp 0.832 0.0000 p8_v 0.064 0.0000
p8zh 0.058 0.0000
rhum 0.031 0.0029
s500 0.110 0.0000
s850 0.022 0.0418

Wabush Lake p500 0.423 0.0000 mslp -0.004 0.5205

s850 0.030 0.0040 p_z 0.012 0.2647
sphu -0.172 0.0000 p5_v 0.061 0.0000
temp 0.839 0.0000 p5zh 0.048 0.0000
p8_z 0.027 0.0096
s500 0.185 0.0000

Note: Predictors selected for model calibration are in bold.

© 2005 Canadian Water Resources Association

Gagnon, Singh, Rousselle and Roy 313

Table A2 (continued). Selection of predictors using partial correlations.

Basin Temperature Precipitation

Station Predictor Partial r p value Predictor Partial r p value

Grande-Baleine
Kuujjarapik p_zh -0.012 0.2416 mslp -0.041 0.0000
p500 0.137 0.0000 p_z 0.060 0.0000
p8zh 0.059 0.0000 p8_z 0.039 0.0002
s500 0.017 0.1073 p850 0.020 0.0567
s850 -0.074 0.0000 s500 0.136 0.0000
sphu -0.065 0.0000 s850 0.100 0.0000
temp 0.809 0.0000

Nitchequon p500 0.430 0.0000 mslp -0.089 0.0000

s500 -0.146 0.0000 p_v -0.054 0.0000
s850 0.015 0.2007 p_z -0.021 0.0964
sphu -0.129 0.0000 p_zh -0.014 0.2696
temp 0.857 0.0000 p8_z 0.037 0.0022
p850 0.083 0.0000

Schefferville p500 0.360 0.0000 mslp -0.031 0.0026

s850 -0.065 0.0000 p_z 0.071 0.0000
sphu -0.053 0.0000 p8_z 0.075 0.0000
temp 0.797 0.0000 s850 0.122 0.0000

Note: Predictors selected for model calibration are in bold.

© 2005 Canadian Water Resources Association