A Framework to Quantify the Uncertainty Contribution of GCMs Over Multiple Sources in Hydrological Impacts of Climate Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The quantification of climate change impacts on hydrology is subjected to multiple uncertainty sources. Large ensembles of hydrological simulations based on multimodel ensembles (MMEs) have been commonly applied to represent overall uncertainty of hydrological impacts. However, as increasing numbers of global climate models (GCMs) are being developed, how many GCMs in MMEs are sufficient to characterize overall uncertainty is not clear. Therefore, this study investigates the influences of GCM quantity on quantifying overall uncertainty and uncertainty contributions of multiple sources in hydrological impacts. Large ensembles of hydrological simulations are obtained through the permutation of 3 greenhouse gas emission scenarios, 22 GCMs, 6 downscaling techniques, 5 hydrological models (HMs), and 5 sets of HM parameters, which enables to decompose uncertainty components using analysis of variance. The influences of GCM quantity are investigated by repeatedly conducting uncertainty decomposition for hydrological simulations from subsets with different numbers of GCMs. The results show that GCMs are the leading uncertainty sources in evaluating changes in annual and peak streamflows, while for changes in low flow, other uncertainty sources except HM parameters also have large contributions to overall uncertainty. Furthermore, on the condition of using no more than five GCMs, there are large possibilities that the overall uncertainty and GCMs' uncertainty contribution are underestimated. Using around 10 GCMs can ensure that the median of different combinations generates similar uncertainty components as the whole ensemble. Therefore, it is recommended to use at least 10 GCMs in studies of climate change impacts on hydrology to thoroughly quantify uncertainty.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".