Hydrologic response to multimodel climate output using a physically based model of groundwater/surface water interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
General circulation models (GCMs) are the primary instruments for obtaining projections of future global climate change. Outputs from GCMs, aided by dynamical and/or statistical downscaling techniques, have long been used to simulate changes in regional climate systems over wide spatiotemporal scales. Numerous studies have acknowledged the disagreements between the various GCMs and between the different downscaling methods designed to compensate for the mismatch between climate model output and the spatial scale at which hydrological models are applied. Very little is known, however, about the importance of these differences once they have been input or assimilated by a nonlinear hydrological model. This issue is investigated here at the catchment scale using a process‐based model of integrated surface and subsurface hydrologic response driven by outputs from 12 members of a multimodel climate ensemble. The data set consists of daily values of precipitation and min/max temperatures obtained by combining four regional climate models and five GCMs. The regional scenarios were downscaled using a quantile scaling bias‐correction technique. The hydrologic response was simulated for the 690 km2des Anglais catchment in southwestern Quebec, Canada. The results show that different hydrological components (river discharge, aquifer recharge, and soil moisture storage) respond differently to precipitation and temperature anomalies in the multimodel climate output, with greater variability for annual discharge compared to recharge and soil moisture storage. We also find that runoff generation and extreme event‐driven peak hydrograph flows are highly sensitive to any uncertainty in climate data. Finally, the results show the significant impact of changing sequences of rainy days on groundwater recharge fluxes and the influence of longer dry spells in modifying soil moisture spatial variability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".