Effects of Uncertainty in Climate Inputs on Simulated Evapotranspiration and Runoff in the Western Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hydrological models require accurate precipitation and air temperature inputs in order to adequately depict water fluxes and storages across Arctic regions. Biases such as gauge undercatch, as well as uncertainties in numerical weather prediction reanalysis data that propagate through water budget models, limit the ability to accurately model the terrestrial arctic water cycle. A hydrological model forced with three climate datasets and three methods of estimating potential evapotranspiration (PET) was used to better understand the impact of these processes on simulated water fluxes across the Western Arctic Linkage Experiment (WALE) domain. Climate data were drawn from the NCEP–NCAR reanalysis (NNR) (NCEP1), a modified version of the NNR (NCEP2), and the Willmott–Matsuura (WM) dataset. PET methods applied in the model were Hamon, Penman–Monteith, and Penman–Monteith using adjusted vapor pressure data. High vapor pressures in the NNR lead to low simulated evapotranspiration (ET) in model runs using the Penman–Monteith PET method, resulting in increased runoff. Annual ET derived from simulations using Penman–Monteith PET was half the magnitude of ET simulated when the Hamon method was used. Adjustments made to the reanalysis vapor pressure data increased the simulated ET flux, reducing simulated runoff. Using the NCEP2 or WM climate data, along with the Penman–Monteith PET function, results in agreement to within 7% between the simulated and observed runoff across the Yukon River basin. The results reveal the high degree of uncertainty present in climate data and the range of water fluxes generated from common model drivers. This suggests the need for thorough evaluations of model requirements and potential biases in forcing data, as well as corroborations with observed data, in all efforts to simulate arctic water balances.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".