Uncertainty of Hydrological Model Components in Climate Change Studies over Two Nordic Quebec Catchments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Projected climate change effects on hydrology are investigated for the 2041–60 horizon under the A2 emission scenarios using a multimodel approach over two snowmelt-dominated catchments in Canada. An ensemble of 105 members was obtained by combining seven snow models (SMs), five potential evapotranspiration (PET) methods, and three hydrological model (HM) structures. The study was performed using high-resolution simulations from the Canadian Regional Climate Model (CRCM–15 km) driven by two members of the third-generation Canadian Coupled Global Climate Model (CGCM3). This study aims to compare various combinations of SM–PET–HM in terms of their ability to simulate streamflows under the current climate and to evaluate how they affect the assessment of the climate change–induced hydrological impacts at the catchment scale. The variability of streamflow response caused by the use of different SMs (degree-day versus degree-day/energy balance), PET methods (temperature-based versus radiation-based methods), and HM structures is evaluated, as well as the uncertainty due to the natural climate variability (CRCM intermember variability). The hydroclimatic simulations cover 1961–90 in the present period and 2041–60 in the future period. The ensemble spread of the climate change signal on streamflow is large and varies with catchments. Using the variance decomposition on three hydrologic indicators, the HM structure was found to make the most substantial contribution to uncertainty, followed by the choice of the PET methods or natural climate variability, depending on the hydrologic indicator and the catchment. Snow models played a minor, almost negligible role in the assessment of the climate change impacts on streamflow for the study catchments.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".