Climate change impacts on the hydrologic regime of a Canadian river: comparing uncertainties arising from climate natural variability and lumped hydrological model structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Diagnosing the impacts of climate change on water resources is a difficult task pertaining to the uncertainties arising from the different modeling steps. Lumped hydrological model structures contribute to this uncertainty as well as the natural climate variability, illustrated by several members from the same Global Circulation Model. In this paper, the hydroclimatic modeling chain consist of twenty-four potential evapotranspiration formulations, twenty lumped conceptual hydrological models, and seven snowmelt modules. These structures are applied on a natural Canadian sub-catchment to address related uncertainties and compare them to the natural variability as depicted by five climatic members. Uncertainties are commented on the observation period and on simulated and projected climates. They rely on interannual hydrographs and hydrological indicators analysis. Results show that the natural climate variability is the major source of uncertainty, followed by the potential evapotranspiration formulations and hydrological models. The selected snowmelt modules, however, do not contribute much to the uncertainty. The analysis also illustrates that the streamflow simulation over the current climate period is already conditioned by tools' selection, propagating this uncertainty on reference and future projection, while climatic members add over it. These findings demonstrate the importance of opting for several climatic members to encompass the important uncertainty related to the climate natural variability, but also of selecting multiple modeling tools to provide a trustworthy diagnosis of the impacts of climate change 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".