High-end climate change impact on European runoff and low flows – exploring the effects of forcing biases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Climate models project a much more substantial warming than the 2 °C target under the more probable emission scenarios, making higher-end scenarios increasingly plausible. Freshwater availability under such conditions is a key issue of concern. In this study, an ensemble of Euro-CORDEX projections under RCP8.5 is used to assess the mean and low hydrological states under +4 °C of global warming for the European region. Five major European catchments were analysed in terms of future drought climatology and the impact of +2 °C versus +4 °C global warming was investigated. The effect of bias correction of the climate model outputs and the observations used for this adjustment was also quantified. Projections indicate an intensification of the water cycle at higher levels of warming. Even for areas where the average state may not considerably be affected, low flows are expected to reduce, leading to changes in the number of dry days and thus drought climatology. The identified increasing or decreasing runoff trends are substantially intensified when moving from the +2 to the +4° of global warming. Bias correction resulted in an improved representation of the historical hydrology. It is also found that the selection of the observational data set for the application of the bias correction has an impact on the projected signal that could be of the same order of magnitude to the selection of the Global Climate Model (GCM).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".