Filters

20182

More filters

20192
Reset filters

Settings

Author: Masaki, Y. × Publisher: Bristol : IOP Publishing ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Sources of uncertainty in hydrological climate impact assessment: A cross-scale study
    (Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2018) Hattermann, F.F.; Vetter, T.; Breuer, L.; Su, Buda; Daggupati, P.; Donnelly, C.; Fekete, B.; Flörke, F.; Gosling, S.N.; Hoffmann, P.; Liersch, S.; Masaki, Y.; Motovilov, Y.; Müller, C.; Samaniego, L.; Stacke, T.; Wada, Y.; Yang, T.; Krysnaova, V.
    Climate change impacts on water availability and hydrological extremes are major concerns as regards the Sustainable Development Goals. Impacts on hydrology are normally investigated as part of a modelling chain, in which climate projections from multiple climate models are used as inputs to multiple impact models, under different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, which result in different amounts of global temperature rise. While the goal is generally to investigate the relevance of changes in climate for the water cycle, water resources or hydrological extremes, it is often the case that variations in other components of the model chain obscure the effect of climate scenario variation. This is particularly important when assessing the impacts of relatively lower magnitudes of global warming, such as those associated with the aspirational goals of the Paris Agreement. In our study, we use ANOVA (analyses of variance) to allocate and quantify the main sources of uncertainty in the hydrological impact modelling chain. In turn we determine the statistical significance of different sources of uncertainty. We achieve this by using a set of five climate models and up to 13 hydrological models, for nine large scale river basins across the globe, under four emissions scenarios. The impact variable we consider in our analysis is daily river discharge. We analyze overall water availability and flow regime, including seasonality, high flows and low flows. Scaling effects are investigated by separately looking at discharge generated by global and regional hydrological models respectively. Finally, we compare our results with other recently published studies. We find that small differences in global temperature rise associated with some emissions scenarios have mostly significant impacts on river discharge—however, climate model related uncertainty is so large that it obscures the sensitivity of the hydrological system.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Human impact parameterizations in global hydrological models improve estimates of monthly discharges and hydrological extremes: A multi-model validation study
    (Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2018) Veldkamp, T.I.E.; Zhao, F.; Ward, P.J.; de Moel, H.; Aerts, J.C.J.H.; Müller Schmied, H.; Portmann, F.T.; Masaki, Y.; Pokhrel, Y.; Liu, X.; Satoh, Y.; Gerten, D.; Gosling, S.N.; Zaherpour, J.; Wada, Y.
    Human activity has a profound influence on river discharges, hydrological extremes and water-related hazards. In this study, we compare the results of five state-of-the-art global hydrological models (GHMs) with observations to examine the role of human impact parameterizations (HIP) in the simulation of mean, high- and low-flows. The analysis is performed for 471 gauging stations across the globe for the period 1971–2010. We find that the inclusion of HIP improves the performance of the GHMs, both in managed and near-natural catchments. For near-natural catchments, the improvement in performance results from improvements in incoming discharges from upstream managed catchments. This finding is robust across the GHMs, although the level of improvement and the reasons for it vary greatly. The inclusion of HIP leads to a significant decrease in the bias of the long-term mean monthly discharge in 36%–73% of the studied catchments, and an improvement in the modeled hydrological variability in 31%–74% of the studied catchments. Including HIP in the GHMs also leads to an improvement in the simulation of hydrological extremes, compared to when HIP is excluded. Whilst the inclusion of HIP leads to decreases in the simulated high-flows, it can lead to either increases or decreases in the low-flows. This is due to the relative importance of the timing of return flows and reservoir operations as well as their associated uncertainties. Even with the inclusion of HIP, we find that the model performance is still not optimal. This highlights the need for further research linking human management and hydrological domains, especially in those areas in which human impacts are dominant. The large variation in performance between GHMs, regions and performance indicators, calls for a careful selection of GHMs, model components and evaluation metrics in future model applications.