Overall uncertainty study of the hydrological impacts of climate change for a Canadian watershed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
General circulation models (GCMs) and greenhouse gas emissions scenarios (GGES) are generally considered to be the two major sources of uncertainty in quantifying the climate change impacts on hydrology. Other sources of uncertainty have been given less attention. This study considers overall uncertainty by combining results from an ensemble of two GGES, six GCMs, five GCM initial conditions, four downscaling techniques, three hydrological model structures, and 10 sets of hydrological model parameters. Each climate projection is equally weighted to predict the hydrology on a Canadian watershed for the 2081–2100 horizon. The results show that the choice of GCM is consistently a major contributor to uncertainty. However, other sources of uncertainty, such as the choice of a downscaling method and the GCM initial conditions, also have a comparable or even larger uncertainty for some hydrological variables. Uncertainties linked to GGES and the hydrological model structure are somewhat less than those related to GCMs and downscaling techniques. Uncertainty due to the hydrological model parameter selection has the least important contribution among all the variables considered. Overall, this research underlines the importance of adequately covering all sources of uncertainty. A failure to do so may result in moderately to severely biased climate change impact studies. Results further indicate that the major contributors to uncertainty vary depending on the hydrological variables selected, and that the methodology presented in this paper is successful at identifying the key sources of uncertainty to consider for a climate change impact study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".