Theoretical and Applied Climatology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-019-02807-x

ORIGINAL PAPER

Assessment of present and future climate change over Kashmir

Himalayas, India
Mifta ul Shafiq 1 & Shazia Ramzan 1 & Pervez Ahmed 1 & Rashid Mahmood 2 & A. P. Dimri 3

Received: 6 July 2018 / Accepted: 4 February 2019

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Climate change over mountainous basins necessitates thorough understanding of present and future temperature and precipitation
regimes for better water resource management, cryospheric resources, hydropower generation, natural hazard risk assessment,
and ecosystem response. Global and regional climate models (GCMs/RCMs) do not represent valley/ridge scale interactions
well. There are inherent model biases due to coarser reorientation of model forcings. The present study is an attempt to use the
statistical downscaling model (SDSM) to calibrate and validate Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM2) outputs. The outputs
have been compared with corresponding in situ observations available at six meteorological stations within the Kashmir basin in
western Himalayas. Daily temperatures and precipitation records during present and future time slices have been considered. The
three Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) were divided into three future time slices of 2030s, 2060s, and 2090s.
Downscaled climate data reveals increase of the mean maximum temperature in the range of 0.3–2.3 °C and the mean minimum
temperature increase from 0.3–1.9 °C under different RCPs when compared with the baseline period of 1980–2010. An
increasing trend from 2 to 17% at different meteorological stations under different RCPs has been observed in precipitation.
Seasonally, autumn shows the highest variability both in temperature and precipitation followed by spring.

1 Introduction fluxes caused by changes in the driving forces leads to

Climate is an important factor in human life and its evolution.
Climate change has become a major concern owing to its
serious ramifications on biodiversity, water resources, agricul-
ture, and other sectors of life. The rising global temperature
and increase in occurrence of extreme events, droughts, and
floods are attributed to changing climate (UNEP 2007).
Considerable importance is being given to the adverse ramifi-
cations of changing climate and it is evident that these changes
are driven by anthropogenic influences on natural climate sys-
tem. A mechanism for quantification of change in energy
* Pervez Ahmed
dr.parvez@uok.edu.in
1
Climate and Cryosphere Group, Department of Geography and
Regional Development, University of Kashmir, Srinagar, Jammu and
Kashmir, India
2
Institute of Geographic Science and Natural Resources Research/Key
Laboratory of Water Cycle and Related Land Surface Processes,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
3
School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi, India
warming. According to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) (2013), associated radiative forcing on the
natural system has increased manifold from 1970s in compar-
ison to earlier decades. The total radiative forcing is reported
to be 43% higher in IPCC Assessment Report 5 (AR5) than
AR4 (IPCC 2013). During last century (1906–2005), global
temperatures have shown an increase of around 0.74 °C ac-
cording to IPCC AR5 (IPCC 2013). In all Representative
Concentration Pathways (RCPs), likely increase in the global
warming trends during the twenty-first century has been well
reported (Mahmood and Babel 2013). The projected values of
increase relative to 1980–2005 are 0.3–1.7 °C (RCP2.6), 1.1–
2.6 °C (RCP4.5), 1.4–3.1 °C (RCP6.0), and 2.6–4.8 °C
(RCP8.5) for 2081–2100 (IPCC 2013). The changes are
alarmingly accelerated in recent years with an increase of
0.78 °C (0.72–0.85) from 2003 to 2012 with respect to
1850–1900. This amount of warming can disturb the hydro-
logical cycle and pose serious threat to natural ecosystem and
human health (Chu et al. 2010; Zhang et al. 2011).
With advancements in numerical methods, a number of
coupled global circulation models (GCMs) representing
Earth’s climate have studied future changes in temperature,
precipitation, and evaporation (Fowler et al. 2007).
However, these GCMs are spatially and temporally coarser

(Gebremeskel et al. 2005), which limits their utility at regional
and mountainous scales (Mahmood and Babel 2013).
Furthermore, application of these GCMs to study the impacts
of possible climate change in future on environment and hy-
drological cycle at regional scales like watershed and sub-
watershed levels is still debatable due to their coarse resolu-
tions (Hay et al. 2000; Wilby et al. 2000; Xu 1999). To over-
come this problem, various downscaling methods have been
developed lately to make large-scale GCM outputs useful at
regional/watershed scales (Wetterhall et al. 2006).
Downscaling is usually carried out by two methods, dynami-
cal downscaling (DD) and statistical downscaling (SD). In
DD, a regional climate model (RCM) forced with GCMs or
nested within a GCM provides finer resolution outputs at re-
gional or local scales (Mahmood and Babel 2013; Chu et al.
2010). In case of SD, large-scale predictors/variables and
local-scale predictands/variables are empirically or statistical-
ly downscaled. The later method is economically more viable
than DD (Wetterhall et al. 2006; Wilby et al. 2000; Fowler
et al. 2007; Chu et al. 2010; Mahmood and Babel 2013).
Furthermore, DD needs a state-of-the-art computational facil-
ity, which in case of less developed nations is rarely available.
In this context, the statistical downscaling model (SDSM)
propounded by Wilby et al. (2002) is being considered for
presenting and predicting current and future climate scenarios.
Research studies on usages of SDSM are being undertaken in
various parts of the world (Chu et al. 2010; Huang et al. 2011;
Mahmood and Babel 2013). SDSM is a combination of mul-
tiple linear regression and a stochastic weather generator, a
well-known statistical model which is frequently used for
downscaling important climate variables (e.g., temperature,
precipitation, and evaporation). The downscaled variables
are used to assess hydrological responses under changing cli-
matic conditions (Diaz-Nieto and Wilby 2005; Gagnon et al.
2005; Gebremeskel et al. 2005; Wilby et al. 2006). SDSM
proves to be crucial in high-altitude areas to downscale the
location-specific future climate information while addressing
the heterogeneity in the topography (Huang et al. 2011). As
mountainous areas have fragile ecosystems, knowledge of fu-
ture climate becomes very crucial and significant.
In Asia, average temperatures and precipitation are likely to
increase by 1.8–3.9 °C and 1–12% respectively by the end of
the next century (IPCC 2007). Studies conducted in various
parts of Himalayas suggest an overall increase in temperature
and precipitation throughout the next century (Beniston et al.
1997; Beniston 2003; Shafiq et al. 2016; Bhutiyani et al. 2010;
Dimri and Dash 2012). Differential increase in the rate of
warming with elevation has been confirmed over various parts
of Himalayas using both observation as well as model data
(Shafiq et al. 2018c; Rangwala et al. 2010) with some studies
suggesting greater warming at higher elevations (Liu et al.
2009a, b; Qin et al. 2009; Rangwala et al. 2013; Dimri et al.
2018a, b) while some at lower elevations (Vuille and Bradley
M. u. Shafiq et al.
2000; Pepin and Losleben 2002; Lu et al. 2010). These differ-
ential elevation-dependent warming patterns can be attributed
to heterogeneous topography which plays a significant role in
the interplay of climate drivers such as snow-albedo feedback
(Giorgi et al. 2012; Fyfe and Flato 1999; Rangwala et al.
2010; Shafiq et al. 2018b), cloud-radiation feedback (Liu
et al. 2009b), changes in surface energy balance, soil moisture
and humidity (Rangwala et al. 2013; Naud et al. 2012), pres-
ence of aerosols (Lau et al. 2010), and changes in cloud cover
(Sun et al. 2000).
Kashmir Himalayas, nestled in a huge Himalayan belt,
have been reported to be a hotspot for climate change risk
due to its complex topography, enormous glacial and water
resources, quick responding watersheds with intense seasonal,
and climate variability over a shorter scale (Shafiq et al.
2018c; MoSTE 2014; Khadka and Pathak 2016). Several such
studies have been undertaken using DD and SD to estimate
the changes in future climate in Asia (Tripathi et al. 2006;
Anandhi et al. 2007; Akhtar et al. 2008, 2009; Ghosh and
Mujumdar 2008; Mujumdar and Ghosh 2008; Ashiq et al.
2010; Goyal and Ojha 2010; Opitz-Stapleton and
Gangopadhyay 2010). Mahmood and Babel (2012) using
SDSM have projected changes in the Jhelum basin in
Kashmir Himalayas. Rashid et al. (2015) used the PRECIS
model to estimate changes in the mean maximum and mini-
mum temperatures over the Kashmir Valley and projected an
increasing trend in all scenarios. A very little work has been
done in Kashmir Himalayas to assess these changes which are
important as Kashmir Himalayas is a part of Jhelum river
basin—one of the major tributaries of the Indus River. In
addition, this region houses a large population which is direct-
ly dependent upon its glacial and water resources.
The study aims to report the temporal and spatial changes
in the maximum, minimum temperatures and precipitation
over Kashmir Himalayas for the present and future periods
of 2006 to 2100, under different RCPs. SD of the CanESM2
model has been used to arrive at future climate using SDSM
4.2. This study shall serve as a benchmark for assessing im-
pacts of changing climate on environment and humans partic-
ularly of high mountainous region of Kashmir Himalayas.
2 Study area
This study is focused on Kashmir Himalayas situated be-
tween 32° 22′ to 34° 43′ N latitude to 73° 52′ to 75° 42′ E
longitude (Shafiq et al. 2018c) in the northwestern
Himalayas. It is an elliptical bowl-shaped valley bounded
by Middle Himalayan (Pir-panjal) ranges from south-
southwest and Greater Himalayas from north-northeast
(Fig. 1). The Jhelum River considered to be the lifeline
of the Kashmir Valley, runs through its entire length, and
has an area of around 16,000 sq. km with elevation
Assessment of present and future climate change over Kashmir Himalayas, India

Fig. 1 Location map of the Kashmir Valley with meteorological stations (marked in green dots) used for this study

ranging from 1060 to 6000 masl. The physiography
ranges from valley floor to high mountainous areas. The
valley being enclosed within high mountain ranges, large
altitudinal variation (1450–5500 masl) gives it a distinc-
tive regional climate. Temperatures dip to as low as −
9 °C in winter and go up to 38 °C in summer. The average
mean maximum and minimum temperatures of the
Kashmir Valley are 19.27 °C and 7.29 °C respectively
with an annual average rainfall of 84 cm. The study area
receives major share of precipitation during winter months
from western disturbances embedded in large-scale sub-
tropical westerlies due to Indian winter monsoon (Dimri
et al. 2016; Shafiq et al. 2018a; Rees and Collins 2006).
During summer, the maximum snowmelt runoff occurs
and hence the snow-covered area becomes minimal.
People in the valley are primarily engaged in agricultural
and horticultural sectors and depend on availability of
water resources.
3 Data and methods
3.1 Observed meteorological data
The study uses long-term daily observed maximum and min-
imum temperatures and precipitation at six meteorological
stations located at different physiographic divisions of
Kashmir Himalayas (Fig. 1). This data was obtained from
the National Data Centre (NDC), Indian Meteorological
Department (IMD), Pune, and Regional Meteorological
Centre, Srinagar. The detailed data description is given in
Table 1. The data was checked and cross-examined using
the double-mass curve analysis (Tabari et al. 2011) in order
to maintain homogeneity and consistency, because changes in
observation procedures or in surrounding conditions (Peterson
et al. 1998) might occur due to instrumentation error. In addi-
tion, an autocorrelation analysis has been applied for both
temperature and precipitation time series at each station

Table 1 List of meteorological

stations used for the present study S. no. Station Physiography Latitude Longitude Elevation Time span
(north) (east) (m)

1. Srinagar Valley floor 34° 05′ 74° 50′ 1588 1969–2011

2. Qazigund Foot hills 33° 35′ 75° 05′ 1690 1969–2011
3. Pahalgam Mountainous 34° 02′ 75° 20′ 2310 1980–2011
4. Gulmarg Mountainous 34° 03′ 74° 24′ 2705 1969–2009
5. Kupwara Karewa’s 34° 25′ 74° 18′ 1609 1978–2009
6. Kokernag Karewa’s 33° 40′ 75° 17′ 1910 1980–2011
 M. u. Shafiq et al.

Fig. 2 GCM grids covering the

Kashmir Valley with
meteorological stations (marked
in green dots)

observation individually (Costa and Soares 2009; Peterson
et al. 1998) before using the same. Missing data gaps at some
meteorological stations were filled using the multiple imputa-
tion method in SPSS 16 and winMice software (Jacobusse
2005).
3.2 Climate change projections
The projected climate change scenarios generated using the
second generation Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM2)
developed at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and
Analysis (CCCma) are used (Salzen et al. 2013; Khadka and
Pathak 2016; Arora et al. 2011). This model is a coupled GCM
and is part of the Climate Model Inter-comparison Project
Phase 5 (CMIP5) framework which contributed to AR5 of
the IPCC. Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)
(van Vuuren et al. 2011; Moss et al. 2010) based on anthro-
pogenic forcing scenarios as compared to its earlier assess-
ment report (Special Report on Emission Scenarios, SRES)
were considered. AR5 utilizes four RCPs which are RCP2.6,
RCP4.5, RCP6, and RCP8.5. In all the RCPs, the atmospheric
CO2 concentrations are higher in 2100 as compared to the
present day. The CanESM2 model outputs are run using five
different ensemble members ranging from r1i1p1, r2i1p1, and
so on up to r5i1p1. These ensemble members differ due to
usage of several initial states (r), initialization methods (i),
and physical details (p). The CanESM2 model is run by
changing the initial states or conditions of the different ensem-
ble members only thus representing internal variability in the
model. In the present study, only the first ensemble member
(r1i1p1) has been used for generating downscaling future cli-
mate over the study area.
The CanESM2 provides climate change scenarios at a
grid size of 2.8125° (Fig. 2). In the present study, to assess
the future climate, the model data has been used for a par-
ticular station from its corresponding model grid point as
shown in Fig. 2. The entire study area is covered in two
model grid points. These outputs were statistically down-
scaled by using SDSM 4.2 (Wilby and Dawson 2007) at
point location by applying a linear transfer function be-
tween mesoscale atmospheric predictors from GCM (e.g.,
mean sea level pressure, geopotential height, and specific
humidity) and local-scale observed predictors (e.g., temper-
ature and precipitation). These transfer functions are used to
derive future climate scenarios at in situ observation points.
CanESM2 provides projections for three RCPs (RCP2.6,

Table 2 Selected predictors and

their partial correlation coefficient Predictand variable Predictor variable Description Partial R
during the screening of variables
Max temperature Nceptempgl Mean temperature at 2 m 0.71
Ncepp500gl 500 hPa geopotential height 0.47
Nceps850gl Specific humidity at 850 hPa height 0.41
Min temperature Ncepp500gl 500 hPa geopotential height 0.68
Nceps850gl Specific humidity at 850 hPa height 0.55
Nceptempgl Mean temperature at 2 m 0.39
Precipitation Ncepmslpgl Mean sea level pressure 0.13
Ncepp8_zgl 850 hPa vorticity 0.08
Assessment of present and future climate change over Kashmir Himalayas, India
 
Table 3 Calibration and validation periods for different meteorological POBS
PBC ¼ PSCEN  ð2Þ
stations of Kashmir Himalayas PCONT
Station Calibration period Validation period
where TBC and PBC are the bias-corrected daily temperature
Gulmarg 1969–1998 1999–2009 and precipitation respectively, and TSCEN and PSCEN are the
Qazigund 1969–1998 1999–2010 daily temperature and precipitation downscaled using SDSM.
Srinagar 1969–1998 1999–2010 TOBS and POBS are the long-term monthly means of observed
Kupwara 1978–1998 1999–2009 temperature and precipitation respectively, while TCONT and
Pahalgam 1980–1999 2000–2010 PCONT are the long-term monthly means of temperature and
Kokernag 1980–1999 2000–2010 precipitation simulated using SDSM for the observed period.

4 Results and discussion

RCP4.5, and RCP8.5) from 2006 to 2100. In addition,
National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) re- 4.1 Observed temperature and precipitation
analysis from 1961 to 2005 has also been used. This reanal-
ysis is divided into two different time periods for calibration Analysis of observed temperature and precipitation is carried
(1969–1998) and validation (1999–2010) of the model. out for available six meteorological stations from 1980 to
Furthermore, future climate change projections were divid- 2016 using two statistical tests viz., Mann Kendall for trend
ed into three periods, namely 2030s (2011–2040), 2060s analysis and Sen’s Slope estimator for magnitude of that trend.
(2041–2070), and 2090s (2071–2100). It has been observed that the mean maximum temperature
The bias in the downscaled climate projection is removed shows an increasing trend with varying rates at different sta-
after the method of Khadka and Pathak (2016) and tions. The overall increase is recorded as 0.03 °C/year with
Teutschbein and Seibert (2012) using Eqs. 1 and 2. lower elevations showing the maximum increase and higher
elevations showing relatively less increase in the mean maxi-
T BC ¼ T SCEN þ ðT OBS −T CONT Þ ð1Þ mum temperature. The mean minimum temperature shows a

(a) 35 0.15
(b) 35 2.5
Difference between observed and calibrated (0C)

Difference between observed and validaon (0C)

Observed
Calibrated
2
30 30
Mean maximum temperature (0C)

0.1 Difference
Mean maximum temperature (0C)

1.5
25 25
0.05 1
20 20 0.5
0
15 15 0

-0.05 -0.5
10 10
-1
5 -0.1 5
-1.5

0 -0.15 0 -2
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month Month

(c) 20 0.2 (d)

Difference between observed and calibrated (0C)

Observed 20 0.8
Difference between observed and validaon (0C)

Observed
Calibrated 0.15 Calibrated
Mean minimum temperature (0C)

0.6
Difference
Mean minimum temperature (0C)

15 Difference
0.1 15
0.4

10 0.05 0.2
10
0 0
5 -0.05 5 -0.2

-0.1 -0.4
0 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -0.15 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -0.6

-5 -0.2 -5 -0.8
Month Month

Fig. 3 Comparison of the observed and calibrated maximum period (1969–1998) and d validation period (1999–2010) at the Srinagar
temperatures for the a calibration period (1969–1998) and b validation station. Black line depicts the difference between the observed values and
period (1999–2010). And the minimum temperatures for the c calibration calibrated values
 M. u. Shafiq et al.

(a) RCP 2.6

20.0 RCP 4.5
140 10

Mean maximum temperature ( C)

Observed RCP 8.5

Difference between observed and calibrated (mm)

0
Calibrated 19.5
120 5
Difference
100 19.0
Precipitaon (mm)

0
80 18.5
-5
60 18.0
-10
40 17.5

20 -15
17.0

0 -20
16.5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Month Year

(b) Fig. 5 Projected change in the maximum temperature in three RCPs for

Difference between observed and validaon (mm)

100 0 Kashmir Himalayas (averaged over six meteorological stations)
Observed
90 Calibrated -2
80 Difference -4 4.2 Future climate projections
Precipitaon (mm)

70
-6
60
-8 4.2.1 Screening of predictors
50
-10
40
30
-12 The selection of predictors is primary to all the SD for esti-
20 -14 mating the relationship between large-scale predictors and
10 -16 local-scale predictands. From the CanESM2 model, 26 pre-
0 -18 dictors were chosen for downscaling but only a few show
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month significant relationships with the local-scale predictand vari-
Fig. 4 Comparison of observed and calibrated averaged monthly
ables. Hence, screening of relevant predictors has been carried
precipitation for the a calibration period (1969–1998) and b validation out before calibrating the model which is an important dimen-
period (1999–2010) at the Srinagar station. Black line depicts the sion of all SD (Wilby et al. 2002). Table 2 shows details of
difference between observed values and calibrated values relationship between predictors and predictands for the mean
maximum, mean minimum, and precipitation respectively.
consistent increase of 0.02 °C/year. Precipitation shows a sig- The method described by Mahmood and Babel (2013) has
nificant decrease over the mountainous parts of the study area been used in which a combination of correlation matrix and
with the Kashmir Valley showing a decrease of around 7 mm/ partial correlation and P value at 0.05 significance level is
year (Shafiq et al. 2018c). Gulmarg station located at around considered. A super predictor variable is chosen among the
2800 masl shows the maximum decrease, while lower eleva- predictors which has the highest correlation coefficient.
tion stations show comparatively lesser decrease in precipita- Among remaining predictors, which have good correlation
tion during the observed period of the study. coefficient with the predictand, partial correlation coefficient

Table 4 Projected change in the maximum and minimum temperatures for three RCPs at different stations of Kashmir Himalayas

Station Temp Baseline RCP2.6 RCP4.5 RCP8.5

Projected change, °C 2030s 2060s 2090s 2030s 2060s 2090s 2030s 2060s 2090s
Srinagar Max 19.6 0.6 0.9 0.88 0.7 1.12 1.45 0.9 1.3 2.3
Min 7.2 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.1 1.2 0.9 1.4 1.9
Pahalgam Max 16.6 0.4 0.78 0.77 0.5 0.93 1.1 0.7 1.2 2.1
Min 2.6 0.14 0.32 0.26 0.14 0.39 0.52 0.2 0.5 1.1
Gulmarg Max 11.4 0.4 0.52 0.50 0.6 0.8 0.89 0.7 0.9 1.6
Min 2.3 0.19 0.35 0.30 0.29 0.49 0.57 0.24 0.68 1.33
Qazigund Max 19.1 0.5 0.7 0.68 0.6 0.9 1.1 0.8 1.1 2.1
Min 6.2 0.48 0.59 0.58 0.51 0.71 0.8 0.61 0.93 1.44
Kokernag Max 17.9 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.93 1.3 0.8 1.1 1.9
Min 6.2 0.35 0.44 0.42 0.34 0.52 0.59 0.37 0.59 1.1
Kupwara Max 19.2 0.4 0.65 0.7 0.7 0.83 1.2 0.8 1.12 2.1
Min 6.4 0.25 0.33 0.33 0.43 0.67 0.71 0.45 0.76 1.26
Assessment of present and future climate change over Kashmir Himalayas, India

RCP 2.6
RCP 4.5 Table 6 Future changes in the seasonal minimum temperature (°C)
7.0
RCP 8.5 with respect to the baseline (1980–2010) under RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 in
Mean maximum temperature ( C)

the Kashmir Valley (averaged over six meteorological stations) during

0

6.8
near-, mid-, and far-future
6.6
6.4 RCP2.6 RCP8.5
6.2
6.0 2030s 2060s 2090s 2030s 2060s 2090s
5.8
5.6
Winter 0.12 0.28 0.2 Winter 0.29 0.47 0.67
5.4 Spring 0.25 0.42 0.3 Spring 0.44 0.71 0.98
5.2 Summer 0.33 0.56 0.4 Summer 0.54 0.9 1.1
5.0 Autumn 0.55 0.62 0.9 Autumn 0.66 1.16 2.66
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Year
Annual 0.31 0.47 0.43 Annual 0.46 0.81 1.35
Fig. 6 Projected change in the minimum temperature in three RCPs for
Kashmir Himalayas (averaged over six meteorological stations)
4.2.2 Calibration and validation of SDSM

with presence of the super predictor variable is calculated Calibration of the model outputs is one of the primary steps
along with percentage reduction in an absolute correlation involved to generate improved data. In this process, a regres-
using following equation: sion relationship is established between predictor variables
  from CanESM2 GCM with local-scale predictand. The
P:r−R1
PRP ¼ SDSM model is calibrated for different periods for different
R1 stations which are listed in Table 3. The model is calibrated
using these predictor variables. For assessing reliability of the
where PRP is the percentage reduction in partial correlation calibrated model, the simulated results have been validated
with respect to the correlation coefficient, P.r is the partial during above mentioned periods. Figures 3 and 4 show the
correlation coefficient, and R1 is the correlation coefficient comparison of observed and calibrated predictands for tem-
between the predictor and predictand. The predictand variable perature and precipitation respectively during calibration and
which has high multi co-linearity with the super predictor validation periods at the Srinagar station only. Figure 3 shows
variable has been avoided. It has been found that comparison between the maximum temperature for the cali-
Nceptempgl (mean temperature at 2 m) is the super predictor bration period (Fig. 3a) and validation period (Fig. 3b) while
variable for both the mean maximum and mean minimum Fig. 3c and 3d shows comparison between the minimum tem-
temperatures at all stations. For precipitation, Ncepmslpgl peratures. Similarly, comparison between observed and cali-
(mean sea level pressure) shows a dominant relationship and brated values of precipitation is shown in Fig. 4a for the cal-
hence considered as a super predictor variable at all stations. ibration period and Fig. 4b for validation period.
The selected predictors are well in agreement with most of the A statistical summary performed using the coefficient of
similar other studies (Wilby et al. 2002; Chu et al. 2010; determination (R2) was used to check model performance
Huang et al. 2011; Hashmi et al. 2011; Mahmood and Babel for different climatic variables. During the calibration peri-
2012; Mahmood and Babel 2013; Khadka and Pathak 2016). od, R2 for the maximum temperature and minimum temper-
atures were found to be 0.88 and 0.83 respectively whereas
for precipitation, it was 0.61. Statistical results for the val-
Table 5 Future changes in the seasonal maximum temperature (°C) idation period were 0.84 and 0.85 for the mean maximum
with respect to the baseline (1980–2010) under RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 in and minimum and 0.57 for precipitation. The model struc-
the Kashmir Valley (averaged over six meteorological stations) during
near-, mid-, and far-future
ture for temperature was set as an unconditional process
whereas for precipitation it was set as a conditional process.
RCP2.6 RCP8.5 The lower values of R2 for precipitation were mainly due to
its complicated and heterogeneous nature because daily pre-
2030s 2060s 2090s 2030s 2060s 2090s
cipitation has been reported to be poorly resolved by large-
Winter 0.27 0.46 0.49 Winter 0.4 0.78 1.19 scale predictors and difficult to simulate (Wilby and
Spring 0.39 0.73 0.69 Spring 0.6 0.86 0.51 Dawson 2007). These results are satisfactory and compara-
Summer 0.5 0.72 0.8 Summer 1.03 1.38 2.16 ble with the results of some previous studies (Wilby et al.
Autumn 0.59 0.86 1.03 Autumn 1.10 1.47 3.23 2000; Nguyen 2005; Liu et al. 2009a, b; Souvignet and
Annual 0.43 0.70 0.72 Annual 0.78 1.12 2.01 Heinrich 2011; Huang et al. 2011; Mahmood et al. 2015;
Khadka and Pathak 2016).
 M. u. Shafiq et al.

Fig. 7 Projected elevation vs (a) (b)

temperature at different 2800 2030s 2800 2030s
meteorological stations in 2060s 2060s
2600 2090s 2600 2090s
Kashmir Himalayas in RCP2.6
for the a mean maximum 2400 2400

Elevation (masl)

Elevation (masl)
temperature and b mean 2200 2200
minimum temperature. And in
RCP8.5 for the c mean maximum 2000 2000

temperature and d mean 1800 1800

minimum temperature
1600 1600

1400 1400
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Projected change for RCP 2.6 ( 0C) Projected change for RCP 2.6 ( 0C)

(c) (d)
2800 2030s 2800 2030s
2060s 2060s
2600 2090s 2600 2090s

Elevation (masl) 2400 2400

Elevation (masl)
2200 2200

2000 2000

1800 1800

1600 1600

1400 1400
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Projected change for RCP 8.5 ( 0C) Projected change for RCP 8.5 ( 0C)

4.3 Future climate projection
CanESM2 model outputs were downscaled for future projec-
tions using SDSM for three RCPs. The maximum tempera-
ture, minimum temperature, and precipitation were down-
scaled. These projected results were compared with the base-
line period of 1980–2010 and are presented in Table 4. It is
pertinent to mention here that for scenario generation in
SDSM 4.2, the size of the ensemble was set at 20 and all the
results are generated using the mean of these 20 ensembles.
The results show that for all the RCPs, the mean maximum
(Fig. 5) and mean minimum temperature (Fig. 6) will increase
over the next century. The RCP2.6 shows that temperatures
will increase up to 2060s and then slightly decrease during
2070–2100. The results show a suitable relation with the
RCP2.6 with the assumption that radiative forcing will in-
crease to 3.1 W/m2 before it returns to 2.6 W/m2 by the end
of 2100. The RCP8.5 shows the maximum increase at almost
all the stations especially during 2090s. The results show a
similar pattern over all the stations in the Kashmir Valley. It
was observed that under all RCPs, the mean maximum tem-
perature shows an increase from 0.3–0.9 °C during 2030s,
0.5–1.3 °C for 2060s, and 0.5–2.3 °C during 2090s.
Minimum temperature rather shows a sharp increase in almost
all the stations as compared with the baseline period. During
2030s, the increase in the mean minimum temperature is of the
order of 0.1 to 0.9 °C, 0.3–1.4 °C during 2060s, and 0.3 to
1.9 °C for 2090s respectively. The maximum increase in the
mean maximum temperature is seen at the Srinagar station of
the Kashmir Valley during 2090s in RCP8.5. These results are
supported by Mahmood et al. (2015) as well.
Projected increase in seasonal temperature data shows that
the maximum increase is projected for autumn season follow-
ed by summer in all RCPs for the maximum temperature

Table 7 Projected change in annual precipitation for future periods compared to the baseline under three RCPs

Station Annual precipitation (mm) RCP2.6 RCP4.5 RCP8.5

2030s (%) 2060s (%) 2090s (%) 2030s (%) 2060s (%) 2090s (%) 2030s (%) 2060s (%) 2090s (%)

Srinagar 712.1 2.8 4.8 8.3 4.9 5.5 10.7 6.3 7.7 11.2
Pahalgam 1254.1 8.4 10.1 12.4 10.1 11 12.6 11.4 12.8 13.2
Gulmarg 1516.1 8.8 10.2 11.5 9.5 11.1 12.8 10.8 11.9 14.2
Qazigund 1214.1 5.9 8.9 10.9 6.3 9.5 11.8 7.9 10.9 13.7
Kokernag 1026.1 8 9.8 14.2 9.1 10.6 15.1 14 16.5 17.1
Kupwara 1067.5 7.5 8.1 10.9 8 8.8 11.5 9.6 11.5 12.7
Assessment of present and future climate change over Kashmir Himalayas, India

(a) (a)
2030s 2800
2030s
Projected percentage precipitation (mm)

8 2060s
2060s
2090s 2600
2090s

6 2400

Elevation (masl)
2200
4

2000

2
1800

0 1600

1400
-2 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Winter Spring Summer Autumn
Percentage projected change (RCP 2.6)
Season
(b) (b)
2030s
2060s 2800
2030s
Projected percentage precipitation (mm)

10 2090s 2060s
2600 2090s
8
2400

Elevation (masl)
6

2200
4

2 2000

0 1800

-2 1600

-4 1400
Winter Spring Summer Autumn 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Season Percentage projected change (RCP 4.5)
(c)
2030s
2060s (c)
Projected percentage precipitation (mm)

12 2090s
2800
10
2030s
2060s
2600 2090s
8

6 2400
4
Elevation (masl)

2200
2

0 2000

-2
1800
-4

Winter Spring Summer Autumn 1600

Season
1400
Fig. 8 Projected percentage change in seasonal averaged precipitation as 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
compared to the baseline period (1980–2010) for a RCP2.6, b RCP4.5, Percentage projected change (RCP 8.5)
and c RCP8.5(averaged over six meteorological stations) during near-,
Fig. 9 Projected elevation vs percentage precipitation change at different
mid-, and far-future
meteorological stations in Kashmir Himalayas for a RCP2.6, b RCP4.5,
and c RCP8.5 during near-, mid-, and far-future

(Table 5); during 2090s for RCP8.5, the projected increase is

3.23 °C for autumn and 2.16 °C for summer season. For of increase with the highest being 0.8 °C during RCP8.5.
RCP4.5, the increase is 1.9 °C and 1.3 °C for autumn and Similarly, the highest increase for the minimum temperature
summer seasons respectively. RCP2.6 shows the lowest rate is projected for autumn season followed by summer (Table 6).
of increase for 2090s with 1.03 °C and 0.8 °C for both sea- During 2090s, RCP8.5 shows an increase of 2.66 °C for au-
sons. Winter season in all RCPs shows the lowest rate of tumn season and 1.1 °C for summer season. For RCP4.5, the
increase in all time spans. Spring season shows a positive rate projected increase is 1.67 °C and 0.8 °C for both seasons for

the same period and for RCP2.6, the projected increase is
0.9 °C and 0.4 °C for both seasons during 2090s.
It has been observed noted that stations in which the
highest rate of increase is observed, both in the mean maxi-
mum and minimum temperatures over Kashmir Himalayas,
are at lower elevations (e.g., Srinagar) as compared to stations
which are relatively higher in elevations (e.g., Pahalgam and
Gulmarg). Figure 7 illustrates the rate of change/increase in
the mean maximum and mean minimum temperatures for two
different RCPs of 2.6 and 8.5 over different elevations of
Kashmir Himalayas. It clearly shows that as the elevation goes
up, the rate of increase of temperature slows down relatively.
This is observed in all the three RCPs.
In case of precipitation, projected annual precipitation at
six stations during three periods of 2030s, 2060s, and 2090s
has been analyzed. These sets were compared with the base-
line period of 1980–2010 and are presented in Table 7. It was
found that precipitation will increase at all stations of the
Kashmir Valley under all RCPs when compared with the base-
line period data. The increase is of the order of the minimum
2% to the maximum of 17% at different meteorological sta-
tions. Under RCP2.6, the average increase in annual precipi-
tation is from 6.9 during 2030s to 11.4% during 2090s. It
shows a slight increase to 7.9% in 2030s with the maximum
increase 12.4% under RCP4.5 in 2090s. The Kashmir Valley
under RCP8.5 shows an increase from 10 to 13.7% from 2030
to 2090s. Station wise distribution shows that Srinagar has the
minimum percentage increase under all RCPs whereas
Kokernag has the maximum percentage increase among all
stations under different RCPs. The lowest percentage in-
creases of around 2.8% in Srinagar under RCP2.6 whereas
the maximum percentage increase of 17.1% at Kokernag un-
der RCP8.5 has been found. In all stations, the projected in-
crease for RCP8.5 was the highest while for RCP2.6 it was the
lowest and intermediate percentage increase was recorded in
RCP4.5. It can be seen that the highest percentage increase in
projected precipitation is recorded in higher elevation stations
of the Kashmir Valley whereas lower percentage increase is
reported in lower elevation stations.
The projected change in seasonal precipitation for the fu-
ture period shows that autumn season has the highest percent-
age increase in precipitation in all scenarios for 2030s, 2060s,
and 2090s as shown in Fig. 8. For autumn season, the increase
in the precipitation varies from 2.2% during 2030s for RCP2.6
to 11% during 2090s for RCP8.5. A slight decrease is ob-
served in precipitation for summer season during 2090s for
all RCPs. Winter season shows a slight increase of 0.6 to 6.5%
from RCP2.6 to RCP8.5 for different time intervals. Overall,
the highest increase has been recorded in autumn followed by
spring season. The projected precipitation in spring varies
from 2 to 8% for different RCPs.
Figure 9 shows relationship between projected precipita-
tion in Kashmir Himalayas and elevation of different
M. u. Shafiq et al.
meteorological stations. It is illustrated that lower elevations
are going to record lower amount of increase in precipitation
as compared to higher elevated stations. The figure also de-
picts that elevations of around 2000 masl will record the max-
imum percentage increase in precipitation in future under all
the RCPs while relatively this will decrease towards the higher
elevated areas like Pahalgam and Gulmarg. The situation is
replicated in almost all the RCPs.
5 Conclusions
The future climate change projection was carried out for
Kashmir Himalayas using the outputs of CanESM2. A statis-
tical downscaling approach was employed to downscale these
outputs at a station scale using SDSM 4.2. The downscaling of
important climate variables like temperature and precipitation
is important for various impact studies in Kashmir Himalayas,
which have huge glacial as well as hydrological resources.
The projections reveal an increasing trend in the mean
maximum and mean minimum temperatures at all meteoro-
logical stations under all RCPs. The highest increase in the
mean maximum and mean minimum temperatures was re-
corded under RCP8.5. In RCP2.6, the mean maximum tem-
perature shows an increase of 0.3–0.9 °C and the mean min-
imum temperature shows an increase of 0.2–0.8 °C under all
scenarios. The highest increase is seen in RCP8.5 where in-
crease as compared to the baseline period is 0.7–2.3 °C and
0.2–1.9 °C for the maximum and minimum temperatures re-
spectively. Autumn season has recorded the highest increase
followed by summer in all stations of Kashmir Himalayas.
Projected precipitation shows an overall increase in Kashmir
Himalayas under all RCPs over different future time periods.
The increase in precipitation varies from 2 to 17% for different
meteorological stations of Kashmir under different RCPs.
Seasonally, autumn season has shown the highest percentage
increase in precipitation followed by spring season. Winter
season has shown a relatively less increase from 2030s to
2090s under different RCPs. Further, the projected tempera-
ture shows that lower elevated areas in Kashmir Himalayas
will be recording the highest increase in the mean maximum
and mean minimum temperatures. Whereas precipitation vs
elevation distribution shows that it will increase as elevation
increases with the highest percentage increase around
2000 masl. The precipitation shows a relatively lower percent-
age increase in higher elevated areas of Kashmir Himalayas.
The study suggests that temperature and precipitation will
increase in Kashmir Himalayas from 2030s to 2090s when
compared to the baseline period of 1980–2010. The study
provides an insight into future climate scenario of Kashmir
Himalayas. The changes in climatic conditions of the region
will have serious ramifications in terms of water availability
and glacial environment of Kashmir Himalayas. The changes
Assessment of present and future climate change over Kashmir Himalayas, India
in the mean minimum temperature will reduce solid precipi-
tation and enhanced the melting period will be observed as the
mean maximum temperature increases over the study area.
This will enhance glacier melting with faster snout retreat,
reduction in the area of glacier, and increased snowmelt run-
off. As hydrological cycle of Kashmir Himalayas is dominat-
ed by snow and glacier melt, the projected changes in essential
climatic variables like temperature, precipitation, and conse-
quent change in cryosphere will alter the water resources of
the study area. As a consequence, the hydrological system will
experience changes in average availability of water, more fre-
quent extreme events like floods, and amount and intensity of
heavy precipitation. This study also points out to the fact that
such elevation distribution of temperature and precipitation is
very rare in Himalayas. In Kashmir Himalayas, no meteoro-
logical stations are above 2800 masl, which becomes a hin-
drance for accurate estimation of future temperature and pre-
cipitation over high elevated areas. There is a need of estab-
lishing dense network of meteorological stations especially
over areas which are above 3000 masl for better estimation
of climatic variability/change.
The use of single GCM for statistical downscaling may
lead to biased estimation of future climate. Thus, to take care
of uncertainties using single GCM, it is suggested to use a
multi-model ensemble and/or multi-scenario approach to give
more a realistic estimation of future climate, particularly over
Kashmir Himalayas, which is a very complex study area.
Moreover, using multiple ensemble members or their mean
of a single model can also be an alternative for better realistic
scenarios of climate. Ensemble calculations facilitate quanti-
fying the variability of simulation data concerning a single
model. Use of ensemble mean also helps in removing uncer-
tainty associated with single member of ensemble. In addition,
downscaling multiple GCMs with an RCM or multiple RCMs
would be another recommendation to take care of uncer-
tainties. Furthermore, there are inherent uncertainties in the
key assumptions about and relationships between future pop-
ulation, socio-economic development, and technical changes
that constitute the basis of the IPCC scenarios. An imperfect
understanding of some of the processes and physics in carbon
cycle and chemical reactions in atmosphere also generates
uncertainties in conversion of emissions to concentration.
Uncertainties also arise due to incomplete description of key
processes and feedbacks in the model.
This is important because multiple climate model outputs
can help in capturing the probable path of growth of future
climate over Kashmir Himalayas. The minimizing of uncer-
tainties using multi-model ensembles will provide a clearer
picture of GHG emission trends and behavior of future climate
and help in impact assessment studies in Kashmir Himalayas.
In addition, limitations in detailed studies over the re-
gion are due to sparse network of stations providing cur-
rent data and lack of records of detailed historical data.
This causes not only gaps in the dataset but inherent var-
iation between the observational datasets. Further, ques-
tions that urgently need to be answered are the impacts of
climatic warming on various sectors like water resources,
agriculture, livelihood patterns, and socio-economic setup.
Due to imminent change in climatic patterns, these de-
tailed climatic studies over the region can form a basis
for strong climate change adaptation policies.
Acknowledgments The acknowledgements are due to the Indian
Meteorological Department (IMD), Srinagar, and National Data Centre,
Pune, for necessary meteorological data. The authors would like to thank
the developers of CanESM2 GCM and Canadian Centre for Climate
Modelling and Analysis (CCCma) for keeping the model data in public
domain. Thanks are also to the anonymous reviewers and editor of the
journal for their valuable suggestions and insightful comments. The au-
thors appreciate the help provided by Dr. Musavir Ahmad, Assistant
Professor at the Department of Linguistics, University of Kashmir, for
English language corrections.
Funding information The first author received financial support from the
University Grants Commission, New Delhi, in the form of UGC-
NETJRF fellowship scheme. Pervez received financial support from the
MOES & NCAOR under HiCOM initiative. AP Dimri received financial
support from the MoEF&CC under NMHS.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Akhtar M, Ahmad N, Booij MJ (2008) The impact of climate change on
the water resources of Hindukush–Karakorum–Himalaya region un-
der different glacier coverage scenarios. J Hydrol 355(1–4):148–
163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.03.015
Akhtar M, Ahmad N, Booij M.J. (2009) Use of regional climate model
simulations as input for hydrological models for the Hindukush-
Karakorum-Himalaya region. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 13, 1075–1089
Anandhi A, Srinivas VV, Nanjundiah RS, Nagesh Kumar D (2007)
Downscaling precipitation to river basin in India for IPCC SRES
scenarios using support vector machine. Int J Climatol 28:401–420.
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1529
Arora VK, Scinocca JF, Boer GJ, Christian JR, Denman KL, Flato GM,
Kharin VV, Lee WG, Merryfield WJ (2011) Carbon emission limits
required to satisfy future representative concentration pathways of
greenhouse gases. Geophys Res Lett 38(5):3–8. https://doi.org/10.
1029/2010GL046270.
Ashiq M, Zhao C, Ni J, Akhtar M (2010) GIS-based high-resolution
spatial interpolation of precipitation in mountain–plain areas of
Upper Pakistan for regional climate change impact studies. Theor
Appl Climatol 99(3):239–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-009-
0140-y
Beniston M (2003) Climatic change in mountainous regions: a review of
possible impacts. Clim Chang 59:5–31
Beniston M, Diaz FD, Bradley RS (1997) Climatic change at high eleva-
tion sites: an overview. Clim Chang 36:233–251
Bhutiyani MR, Kale VS, Pawar NJ (2010) Climate change and the pre-
cipitation variations in the northwestern Himalaya: 1866–2006. Int J
Climatol 30:535–548
Chu J, Xia J, Xu CY, Singh V (2010) Statistical downscaling of daily
mean temperature, pan evaporation and precipitation for climate

change scenarios in Haihe River, China. Theor Appl Climatol 99(1):
149–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-009-0129-6
Costa AC, Soares A (2009) Homogenization of climate data: review and
new perspectives using geostatistics. Math Geosci 41(3):291–305.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-008-9203-3
Diaz-Nieto J, Wilby RL (2005) A comparison of statistical downscaling
and climate change factor methods: impacts on low flows in the
River Thames, United Kingdom. Clim Chang 69(2):245–268.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-005-1157-6
Dimri AP, Dash SK (2012) Wintertime climatic trends in the western
Himalayas. Clim Chang 111(3–4):775–800. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10584-011-0201-y
Dimri AP, Kumar D, Choudhary A, Maharana P (2018a) Future changes
over the Himalayas: maximum and minimum temperature. Glob
Planet Chang 162:212–234
Dimri AP, Kumar D, Choudhary A, Maharana P (2018b) Future changes
over the Himalayas: mean temperature. Glob Planet Chang
162(2018):235–251
Dimri AP, Thayyen RJ, Kibler K, Stanton A, Tullos D, Singh VP (2016)
A review of atmospheric and land surface processes with emphasis
on flood generation along the southern rim of the Himalayas. Sci
Total Environ 556:98–115
Fowler HJ, Blenkinsop S, Tebaldi C (2007) Linking climate change
modelling to impacts studies: recent advances in downscaling tech-
niques for hydrological modelling. Int J Climatol 27(12):1547–
1578. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1556
Fyfe JC, Flato GM (1999) Enhanced climate change and its detection
over the Rocky Mountains. J Clim 12(1):230–243
Gagnon S, Singh B, Rousselle J, Roy L (2005) An application of the
statistical downscaling model (SDSM) to simulate climatic data
for streamflow modelling in Québec. Can Water Res J 30(4):297–
314. https://doi.org/10.4296/cwrj3004297
Gebremeskel S, Liu YB, deSmedt F, Hoffmann L, Pfister L (2005)
Analysing the effect of climate changes on stream flow using statis-
tically downscaled GCM scenarios. Int J River Basin Manag 2(4):
271–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2004.9635237
Ghosh S, Mujumdar P (2008) Statistical downscaling of GCM simula-
tions to stream flow using relevance vector machine. Water Res 31:
132–146
Giorgi F, Coppola E, Solmon F, Mariotti L, Sylla MB, Bi X, Elguindi N,
Diro GT, Nair V, Giuliani G, Turuncoglu UU, Cozzini S, Güttler I,
O’Brien TA, Tawfik AB, Shalaby A, Zakey AS, Steiner AL, Stordal
F, Sloan LC, Brankovic C (2012) RegCM4: model description and
preliminary tests over multipleCORDEX domains. Clim Res 52:7–
29
Goyal MK, Ojha CSP (2010) Robust weighted regression as a downscal-
ing tool in temperature projections. Int J Glob Warm 2(3):234–251.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGW.2010.036135
Hashmi MZ, Shamseldin AY, Melville BW (2011) Comparison of SDSM
and LARS-WG for simulation and downscaling of extreme precip-
itation events in a watershed. Stoch Env Res Risk A 25(4):475–484.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-010-0416-x
Hay LE, Wilby RL, Leavesley GH (2000) A comparison of delta change
and downscaled GCM scenarios for three mountainous basins in the
United States. J Am Water Resour Assoc 36(2):387–397. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1752-1688
Huang J, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Xu C, Wang B, Yao J (2011) Estimation of
future precipitation change in the Yangtze River basin by using
statistical downscaling method. Stoch Env Res Risk A 25(6):781–
792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-010-0441-9
IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis contribu-
tion of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Solomon S, Qin
D, Manning M, Marquis M, Averyt K, Tignor MM, Miller HL (eds).
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, p 996
M. u. Shafiq et al.
IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis contribu-
tion of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Stocker TF, Qin
D, Plattner GK, Tignor MM, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia
Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) . Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge and New York, p 1535
Jacobusse G (2005) WinMICE User’s manual. TNO Quality of Life.
Available at https://www.ethologie.nl/gertjacobusse/. Accessed 15
Mar 2018
Khadka D, Pathak D (2016) Climate change projection for the
marsyangdi river basin, Nepal using statistical downscaling of
GCM and its implications in geodisasters. Geo Disas 3:15. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s40677-016-0050-0
Lau WK, Kim MK, Kim KM, Lee WS (2010) Enhanced surface warming
and accelerated snow melt in the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau
induced by absorbing aerosols. Environ Res Lett 5(2):025204
Liu X, Cheng Z, Yan L, Yin ZY (2009a) Elevation dependency of recent
and future minimum surface air temperature trends in the Tibetan
Plateau and its surroundings. Glob Planet Chang 68(3):164–174
Liu J, Williams JR, Wang X, Yang H (2009b) Using MODAWEC to
generate daily weather data for the EPIC model. Environ Model
Softw 24(5):655–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.10.
008
Lu A, Kang S, Li Z, Theakstone WH (2010) Altitude effects of climatic
variation on Tibetan Plateau and its vicinities. J Earth Sci 21(2):189–
198
Mahmood R, Babel M (2012) Evaluation of SDSM developed by annual
and monthly sub-models for downscaling temperature and precipi-
tation in the Jhelum basin, Pakistan and India. Theor Appl Climatol
1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-012-07650
Mahmood R, Babel MS (2013) Evaluation of SDSM developed by an-
nual and monthly sub-models for downscaling temperature and pre-
cipitation in the Jhelum basin, Pakistan and India. Theor Appl
Climatol 113(1):27–44
Mahmood R, Babel MS, Jia S (2015) Assessment of temporal and spatial
changes of future climate in the Jhelum river basin, Pakistan and
India. Weather Clim Extrem 10:40–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wace.2015.07.002
Moss RH, Edmonds JA, Hibbard KA, Manning MR, Rose SK, van
Vuuren DP, Carter TR, Emori S, Kainuma M, Kram T, Meeh GA,
Mitchel JFB, Nakicenovic N, Riahi K, Smith SJ, Stouffer RJ,
Thomson AM, Weyant JP, Silbanks TJ (2010) The next generation
of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature
463:747–756. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08823
MoSTE (2014) Nepal climate change program (CCP) results manage-
ment framework (RMF) 2013–2020 ministry of science, technology
and environment. Available at http://ppcr3mis.moste.gov.np/file/
RMF%20Doc.pdf. Accessed 21 Apr 2018
Mujumdar P, Ghosh S (2008) Modeling GCM and scenario uncertainty
using a possibilistic approach: application to the Mahanadi River,
India. Water Resour Res 44:W06407–W06401
Naud CM, Miller JR, Landry C (2012) Using satellites to investigate the
sensitivity of longwave downward radiation to water vapor at high
elevations. J Geophys Res Atmos 117(D5) D05101. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2011JD016917
Nguyen V (2005) Downscaling methods for evaluating the impacts of
climate change and variability on hydrological regime at basin scale.
In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Role of Water
Sciences in Transboundary River Basin Management. Thailand, pp
1–8
Opitz-Stapleton S, Gangopadhyay S (2010) A non-parametric, statistical
downscaling algorithm applied to the Rohini River Basin, Nepal.
Theor Appl Climatol 103(3–4):375–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00704-010-0301-z
Assessment of present and future climate change over Kashmir Himalayas, India
Pepin N, Losleben M (2002) Climate change in the Colorado Rocky
Mountains: free air versus surface temperature trends. Int J
Climatol 22(3):311–329
Peterson TC, Easterling DR, Karl TR, Groisman PY, Nicholis N,
Plummer N, Torok S, Auer I, Boehm R, Gullett D, Vincent L,
Heino R, Tuomenvirta H, Mestre O, Szentimrey T, Salinger J,
Førland E, Hanssen-Bauer I, Alexandersson H, Jones P, Parker D
(1998) Homogeneity adjustments of in situ atmospheric climate da-
ta: a review. Int J Climatol 18(13):1493–1517. https://doi.org/10.
1002/(SICI)1097-0088(19981115)18:13<1493:AID-JOC329>3.0.
CO;2-T
Qin J, Yang K, Liang S, Guo X (2009) The altitudinal dependence of
recent rapid warming over the Tibetan Plateau. Clim Chang 97(1):
321–327
Rangwala I, Miller JR, Russell GL, Xu M (2010) Using a global climate
model to evaluate the influences of water vapor, snow cover and
atmospheric aerosol on warming in the Tibetan Plateau during the
twenty-first century. Clim Dyn 34(6):859–872
Rangwala I, Sinsky E, Miller JR (2013) Amplified warming projections
for high altitude regions of the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes
from CMIP5 models. Environ Res Lett 8(2):024040
Rashid I, Romshoo SA, Chaturvedi RK, Ravindranath NH, Sukumar R,
Jayaraman M, Lakshmi TV, Sharma J (2015) Projected climate
change impacts on vegetation distribution over Kashmir
Himalayas. Clim Chang 132:601–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10584-015-1456-5
Rees HG, Collins DN (2006) Regional differences in response of flow in
glacier-fid Himalayan rivers to climatic warming. Hydrol Process
20(10):2157–2169
Salzen KV, Scinocca JF, McFarlane NA, Li J, Cole JN, Plummer D,
Verseghy D, Reader MC, Ma X, Lazare M, Solheim L et al (2013)
The Canadian fourth generation atmospheric global climate model
(CanAM4) part I: representation of physical processes. Atmosphere-
Ocean 51(1):104–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/07055900.2012.
755610
Shafiq MU, Bhat MS, Rasool R, Ahmed P, Singh H, Hassan H (2016)
Variability of Precipitation regime in Ladakh region of India from
1901-2000. J Climatol Weather Forecast 4:2. https://doi.org/10.
4172/2332-2594.1000165
Shafiq MU, Ahmed P, Ahmad AM, Hassan H (2018a) Trend analysis of
winter precipitation over Kashmir valley from 1980 – 2016. IJARSE
07(04). Available at http://www.ijarse.com/images/fullpdf/
1524850486_Jk1786IJARSE.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2018
Shafiq MU, Ahmed P, Islam ZU, Joshi PK, Bhat WA (2018b) Snow cover
area change and its relations with climatic variability in Kashmir
Himalayas, India. Geocarto Int 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10106049.2018.1469675
Shafiq MU, Rasool R, Ahmed P, Dimri AP (2018c) Temperature and
Precipitation trends in Kashmir valley, North Western Himalayas.
Theor Appl Climatol 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-018-
2377-9
Souvignet M, Heinrich J (2011) Statistical downscaling in the arid central
Andes: uncertainty analysis of multi-model simulated temperature
and precipitation. Theor Appl Climatol 106(1–2):229–244. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00704-011-0430-z
Sun B, Groisman PY, Bradley RS, Keimig FT (2000) Temporal changes
in the observed relationship between cloud cover and surface air
temperature. J Clim 13(24):4341–4357
Tabari H, Somee BS, Zadeh MR (2011) Testing for long-term trends in
climatic variables in Iran. Atmos Res 100(1):132–140. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2011.01.005
Teutschbein C, Seibert J (2012) Bias correction of regional climate model
simulations for hydrological climate-change impact studies: review
and evaluation of different methods. J Hydrol 456–457:12–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.05.052
Tripathi S, Srinivas VV, Nanjundiah RS (2006) Downscaling of precipi-
tation for climate change scenarios: a support vector machine ap-
proach. J Hydrol 330(3–4):621–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2006.04.030
UNEP (2007) Global outlook for ice and snow. United Nations
Environment Programme
van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M, Riahi K, Thomson A, Hibbard
K, Hurtt GC, Kram T, Krey V, Jean-Francois L, Masui T,
Meinshausen M, Nakicenovic N, Smith SJ, Rose SK (2011) The
representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climate
Change 109:5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z
Vuille M, Bradley RS (2000) Mean annual temperature trends and their
vertical structure in the tropical Andes. Geophys Res Lett 27(23):
3885–3888
Wetterhall F, Bárdossy A, Chen D, Halldin S, Xu C-Y (2006) Daily
precipitation- downscaling techniques in three Chinese regions.
Water Resour Res 42:W11423. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2005WR004573
Wilby RL et al (2006) Integrated modeling of climate change impacts on
water resources and quality in a low land catchment: River Kennet,
UK. J Hydrol 330(1–2):204–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.
2006.04.033
Wilby RL, Dawson CW (2007) SDSM 4.2 - a decision support tool for
the assessment of regional climate change impacts, Version 4.2 User
Manual. Lancaster University, Lancaster/Environment Agency of
England and Wales, Lancaster, 1–94.
Wilby RL, Hay LE, Gutowski WJ Jr, Arritt RW, Takle ES, Pan Z,
Leavesley GH, Clark MP (2000) Hydrological responses to dynam-
ically and statistically downscaled climate model output. Geophys
Res Lett 27(8):1199–1202. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL006078
Wilby RL, Dawson CW, Barrow EM (2002) SDSM — a decision support
tool for the assessment of regional climate change impacts. Environ
Model Softw 17(2):145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-
8152(01)00060-3
Xu CY (1999) Climate change and hydrologic models: a review of
existing gaps and recent research developments. Water Resour
Manag 13(5):369–382. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008190900459
Zhang XC, Liu WZ, Li Z, Chen J (2011) Trend and uncertainty analysis
of simulated climate change impacts with multiple GCMs and emis-
sion scenarios. Agric For Meteorol 151(10):1297–1304. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.05.010