Comparing Meteorological Data Sets in the Evaluation of Climate Change Impact on Hydrological Indicators: A Case Study on a Mexican Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates the choice of the meteorological data set in the simulation of the streamflow of a Mexican basin, in the bias correction of climate simulations, and in the climate change impact on hydrological indicators. The selected meteorological data sets come from stations, two interpolated data sets and one reanalysis data set. The climate simulations were taken from the five-member ensemble from the second generation Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM2) under two representative concentration pathways (RCPs), for a reference period (1981–2000) and two future periods (2041–2060 and 2081–2100). The selected lumped hydrological model is GR4J, which is a daily lumped four-parameter rainfall-runoff model. Firstly, the results show that GR4J can be calibrated and validated with the meteorological data sets to simulate daily streamflow; however, the hydrological model leads to different hydrological responses for the basin. Secondly, the bias correction procedure obtains a similar relative climate change signal for the variables, but the magnitude of the signal strongly varies with the source of meteorological data. Finally, the climate change impact on hydrological indicators also varies depending on the meteorological data source, thus, for the overall mean flow, this uncertainty is greater than the uncertainty related to the natural variability. On the other hand, mixed results were found for high flows. All in all, the selection of meteorological data source should be taken into account in the evaluation of climate change impact on water resources.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".