Search Results
Performance evaluation of global hydrological models in six large Pan-Arctic watersheds
Global Water Models (GWMs), which include Global Hydrological, Land Surface, and Dynamic Global Vegetation Models, present valuable tools for quantifying climate change impacts on hydrological processes in the data scarce high latitudes. Here we performed a systematic model performance evaluation in six major Pan-Arctic watersheds for different hydrological indicators (monthly and seasonal discharge, extremes, trends (or lack of), and snow water equivalent (SWE)) via a novel Aggregated Performance Index (API) that is based on commonly used statistical evaluation metrics. The machine learning Boruta feature selection algorithm was used to evaluate the explanatory power of the API attributes. Our results show that the majority of the nine GWMs included in the study exhibit considerable difficulties in realistically representing Pan-Arctic hydrological processes. Average APIdischarge (monthly and seasonal discharge) over nine GWMs is > 50% only in the Kolyma basin (55%), as low as 30% in the Yukon basin and averaged over all watersheds APIdischarge is 43%. WATERGAP2 and MATSIRO present the highest (APIdischarge > 55%) while ORCHIDEE and JULES-W1 the lowest (APIdischarge ≤ 25%) performing GWMs over all watersheds. For the high and low flows, average APIextreme is 35% and 26%, respectively, and over six GWMs APISWE is 57%. The Boruta algorithm suggests that using different observation-based climate data sets does not influence the total score of the APIs in all watersheds. Ultimately, only satisfactory to good performing GWMs that effectively represent cold-region hydrological processes (including snow-related processes, permafrost) should be included in multi-model climate change impact assessments in Pan-Arctic watersheds. © 2020, The Author(s).
Climate impact emergence and flood peak synchronization projections in the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna basins under CMIP5 and CMIP6 scenarios
The densely populated delta of the three river systems of the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna is highly prone to floods. Potential climate change-related increases in flood intensity are therefore of major societal concern as more than 40 million people live in flood-prone areas in downstream Bangladesh. Here we report on new flood projections using a hydrological model forced by bias-adjusted ensembles of the latest-generation global climate models of CMIP6 (SSP5-8.5/SSP1-2.6) in comparison to CMIP5 (RCP8.5/RCP2.6). Results suggest increases in peak flow magnitude of 36% (16%) on average under SSP5-8.5 (SSP1-2.6), compared to 60% (17%) under RCP8.5 (RCP2.6) by 2070-2099 relative to 1971-2000. Under RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5 (2070-2099), the largest increase in flood risk is projected for the Ganges watershed, where higher flood peaks become the ‘new norm’ as early as mid-2030 implying a relatively short time window for adaptation. In the Brahmaputra and Meghna rivers, the climate impact signal on peak flow emerges after 2070 (CMIP5 and CMIP6 projections). Flood peak synchronization, when annual peak flow occurs simultaneously at (at least) two rivers leading to large flooding events within Bangladesh, show a consistent increase under both projections. While the variability across the ensemble remains high, the increases in flood magnitude are robust in the study basins. Our findings emphasize the need of stringent climate mitigation policies to reduce the climate change impact on peak flows (as presented using SSP1-2.6/RCP2.6) and to subsequently minimize adverse socioeconomic impacts and adaptation costs. Considering Bangladesh’s high overall vulnerability to climate change and its downstream location, synergies between climate change adaptation and mitigation and transboundary cooperation will need to be strengthened to improve overall climate resilience and achieve sustainable development.
Multimodel assessment of flood characteristics in four large river basins at global warming of 1.5, 2.0 and 3.0 K above the pre-industrial level
This study assesses the flood characteristics (timing, magnitude and frequency) in the pre-industrial and historical periods, and analyzes climate change impacts on floods at the warming levels of 1.5, 2.0 and 3.0 K above the pre-industrial level in four large river basins as required by the Paris agreement. Three well-established hydrological models (HMs) were forced with bias-corrected outputs from four global climate models (GCMs) for the pre-industrial, historical and future periods until 2100. The long pre-industrial and historical periods were subdivided into multiple 31-year subperiods to investigate the natural variability. The mean flood characteristics in the pre-industrial period were derived from the large ensemble based on all GCMs, HMs and 31-year subperiods, and compared to the ensemble means in the historical and future periods. In general, the variance of simulated flood characteristics is quite large in the pre-industrial and historical periods. Mostly GCMs and HMs contribute to the variance, especially for flood timing and magnitude, while the selection of 31-year subperiods is an important source of variance for flood frequency. The comparison between the ensemble means shows that there are already some changes in flood characteristics between the pre-industrial and historical periods. There is a clear shift towards earlier flooding for the Rhine (1.5 K scenario) and Upper Mississippi (3.0 K scenario). The flood magnitudes show a substantial increase in the Rhine and Upper Yellow only under the 3.0 K scenario. The floods are projected to occur more frequently in the Rhine under the 1.5 and 2.0 K scenarios, and less frequently in the Upper Mississippi under all scenarios.
How evaluation of hydrological models influences results of climate impact assessment—an editorial
This paper introduces the Special Issue (SI) “How evaluation of hydrological models influences results of climate impact assessment.” The main objectives were as follows: (a) to test a comprehensive model calibration/validation procedure, consisting of five steps, for regional-scale hydrological models; (b) to evaluate performance of global-scale hydrological models; and (c) to reveal whether the calibration/validation methods and the model evaluation results influence climate impacts in terms of the magnitude of the change signal and the uncertainty range. Here, we shortly describe the river basins and large regions used as case studies; the hydrological models, data, and climate scenarios used in the studies; and the applied approaches for model evaluation and for analysis of projections for the future. After that, we summarize the main findings. The following general conclusions could be drawn. After successful comprehensive calibration and validation, the regional-scale models are more robust and their projections for the future differ from those of the model versions after the conventional calibration and validation. Therefore, climate impacts based on the former models are more trustworthy than those simulated by the latter models. Regarding the global-scale models, using only models with satisfactory or good performance on historical data and weighting them based on model evaluation results is a more reliable approach for impact assessment compared to the ensemble mean approach that is commonly used. The former method provides impact results with higher credibility and reduced spreads in comparison to the latter approach. The studies for this SI were performed in the framework of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP). © 2020, The Author(s).
How evaluation of global hydrological models can help to improve credibility of river discharge projections under climate change
Importance of evaluation of global hydrological models (gHMs) before doing climate impact assessment was underlined in several studies. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of six gHMs in simulating observed discharge for a set of 57 large catchments applying common metrics with thresholds for the monthly and seasonal dynamics and summarize them estimating an aggregated index of model performance for each model in each basin. One model showed a good performance, and other five showed a weak or poor performance in most of the basins. In 15 catchments, evaluation results of all models were poor. The model evaluation was supplemented by climate impact assessment for a subset of 12 representative catchments using (1) usual ensemble mean approach and (2) weighted mean approach based on model performance, and the outcomes were compared. The comparison of impacts in terms of mean monthly and mean annual discharges using two approaches has shown that in four basins, differences were negligible or small, and in eight catchments, differences in mean monthly, mean annual discharge or both were moderate to large. The spreads were notably decreased in most cases when the second method was applied. It can be concluded that for improving credibility of projections, the model evaluation and application of the weighted mean approach could be recommended, especially if the mean monthly (seasonal) impacts are of interest, whereas the ensemble mean approach could be applied for projecting the mean annual changes. The calibration of gHMs could improve their performance and, consequently, the credibility of projections. © 2020, The Author(s).
Intercomparison of regional-scale hydrological models and climate change impacts projected for 12 large river basins worldwide - A synthesis
An intercomparison of climate change impacts projected by nine regional-scale hydrological models for 12 large river basins on all continents was performed, and sources of uncertainty were quantified in the framework of the ISIMIP project. The models ECOMAG, HBV, HYMOD, HYPE, mHM, SWAT, SWIM, VIC and WaterGAP3 were applied in the following basins: Rhine and Tagus in Europe, Niger and Blue Nile in Africa, Ganges, Lena, Upper Yellow and Upper Yangtze in Asia, Upper Mississippi, MacKenzie and Upper Amazon in America, and Darling in Australia. The model calibration and validation was done using WATCH climate data for the period 1971–2000. The results, evaluated with 14 criteria, are mostly satisfactory, except for the low flow. Climate change impacts were analyzed using projections from five global climate models under four representative concentration pathways. Trends in the period 2070–2099 in relation to the reference period 1975–2004 were evaluated for three variables: the long-term mean annual flow and high and low flow percentiles Q 10 and Q 90, as well as for flows in three months high- and low-flow periods denoted as HF and LF. For three river basins: the Lena, MacKenzie and Tagus strong trends in all five variables were found (except for Q 10 in the MacKenzie); trends with moderate certainty for three to five variables were confirmed for the Rhine, Ganges and Upper Mississippi; and increases in HF and LF were found for the Upper Amazon, Upper Yangtze and Upper Yellow. The analysis of projected streamflow seasonality demonstrated increasing streamflow volumes during the high-flow period in four basins influenced by monsoonal precipitation (Ganges, Upper Amazon, Upper Yangtze and Upper Yellow), an amplification of the snowmelt flood peaks in the Lena and MacKenzie, and a substantial decrease of discharge in the Tagus (all months). The overall average fractions of uncertainty for the annual mean flow projections in the multi-model ensemble applied for all basins were 57% for GCMs, 27% for RCPs, and 16% for hydrological models.
Assessing the impacts of 1.5 °C global warming – simulation protocol of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2b)
In Paris, France, December 2015, the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) invited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide a "special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways". In Nairobi, Kenya, April 2016, the IPCC panel accepted the invitation. Here we describe the response devised within the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) to provide tailored, cross-sectorally consistent impact projections to broaden the scientific basis for the report. The simulation protocol is designed to allow for (1) separation of the impacts of historical warming starting from pre-industrial conditions from impacts of other drivers such as historical land-use changes (based on pre-industrial and historical impact model simulations); (2) quantification of the impacts of additional warming up to 1.5°C, including a potential overshoot and long-term impacts up to 2299, and comparison to higher levels of global mean temperature change (based on the low-emissions Representative Concentration Pathway RCP2.6 and a no-mitigation pathway RCP6.0) with socio-economic conditions fixed at 2005 levels; and (3) assessment of the climate effects based on the same climate scenarios while accounting for simultaneous changes in socio-economic conditions following the middle-of-the-road Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP2, Fricko et al., 2016) and in particular differential bioenergy requirements associated with the transformation of the energy system to comply with RCP2.6 compared to RCP6.0. With the aim of providing the scientific basis for an aggregation of impacts across sectors and analysis of cross-sectoral interactions that may dampen or amplify sectoral impacts, the protocol is designed to facilitate consistent impact projections from a range of impact models across different sectors (global and regional hydrology, lakes, global crops, global vegetation, regional forests, global and regional marine ecosystems and fisheries, global and regional coastal infrastructure, energy supply and demand, temperature-related mortality, and global terrestrial biodiversity).
Climate change impact on regional floods in the Carpathian region
Study region: Tisza and Prut catchments, originating on the slopes of the Carpathian mountains. Study focus: The study reported here investigates (i) climate change impacts on flood risk in the region, and (ii) uncertainty related to hydrological modelling, downscaling techniques and climate projections. The climate projections used in the study were derived from five GCMs, downscaled either dynamically with RCMs or with the statistical downscaling model XDS. The resulting climate change scenarios were applied to drive the eco-hydrological model SWIM, which was calibrated and validated for the catchments in advance using observed climate and hydrological data. The changes in the 30-year flood hazards and 98 and 95 percentiles of discharge were evaluated for the far future period (2071–2100) in comparison with the reference period (1981–2010). New hydrological insights for the region: The majority of model outputs under RCP 4.5 show a small to strong increase of the 30-year flood level in the Tisza ranging from 4.5% to 62%, and moderate increase in the Prut ranging from 11% to 22%. The impact results under RCP 8.5 are more uncertain with changes in both directions due to high uncertainties in GCM-RCM climate projections, downscaling methods and the low density of available climate stations. © 2019 The Authors
Assessment of Socio-Economic and Climate Change Impacts on Water Resources in Four European Lagoon Catchments
This study demonstrates the importance of considering potential land use and management changes in climate impact research. By taking into account possible trends of economic development and environmental awareness, we assess effects of global warming on water availability and quality in the catchments of four European lagoons: Ria de Aveiro (Portugal), Mar Menor (Spain), Vistula Lagoon (Poland and Russia), and Tyligulskyi Liman (Ukraine). Different setups of the process-based soil and water integrated model (SWIM), representing one reference and four socio-economic scenarios for each study area: the “business as usual”, “crisis”, “managed horizons”, and “set-aside” scenarios are driven by sets of 15 climate scenarios for a reference (1971–2000) and near future (2011–2040) scenario period. Modeling results suggest a large spatial variability of potential impacts across the study areas, due to differences in the projected precipitation trends and the current environmental and socio-economic conditions. While climate change may reduce water and nutrients input to the Ria de Aveiro and Tyligulsyi Liman and increase water inflow to the Vistula Lagoon the socio-economic scenarios and their implications may balance out or reverse these trends. In the intensely managed Mar Menor catchment, climate change has no notable direct impact on water resources, but changes in land use and water management may certainly aggravate the current environmental problems. The great heterogeneity among results does not allow formulating adaptation or mitigation measures at pan-European level, as initially intended by this study. It rather implies the need of a regional approach in coastal zone management. © 2019, The Author(s).
How the performance of hydrological models relates to credibility of projections under climate change
Two approaches can be distinguished in studies of climate change impacts on water resources when accounting for issues related to impact model performance: (1) using a multi-model ensemble disregarding model performance, and (2) using models after their evaluation and considering model performance. We discuss the implications of both approaches in terms of credibility of simulated hydrological indicators for climate change adaptation. For that, we discuss and confirm the hypothesis that a good performance of hydrological models in the historical period increases confidence in projected impacts under climate change, and decreases uncertainty of projections related to hydrological models. Based on this, we find the second approach more trustworthy and recommend using it for impact assessment, especially if results are intended to support adaptation strategies. Guidelines for evaluation of global- and basin-scale models in the historical period, as well as criteria for model rejection from an ensemble as an outlier, are also suggested.