The Impact of Meteorological Forcing Uncertainty on Hydrological Modeling: A Global Analysis of Cryosphere Basins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Meteorological forcing is a major source of uncertainty in hydrological modeling. The recent development of probabilistic large‐domain meteorological data sets enables convenient uncertainty characterization, which however is rarely explored in large‐domain research. This study analyzes how uncertainties in meteorological forcing data affect hydrological modeling in 289 representative cryosphere basins by forcing the Structure for Unifying Multiple Modeling Alternatives (SUMMA) and mizuRoute models with precipitation and air temperature ensembles from the Ensemble Meteorological Data set for Planet Earth (EM‐Earth). EM‐Earth probabilistic estimates are used in ensemble simulation for uncertainty analysis. The results reveal the magnitude, spatial distribution, and scale effect of uncertainties in meteorological, snow, runoff, soil water, and energy variables. There are three main findings. (a) The uncertainties in precipitation and temperature lead to substantial uncertainties in hydrological model outputs, some of which exceed 100% of the magnitude of the output variables themselves. (b) The uncertainties of different variables show distinct scale effects caused by spatial averaging or temporal averaging. (c) Precipitation uncertainties have the dominant impact for most basins and variables, while air temperature uncertainties are also nonnegligible, sometimes contributing more to modeling uncertainties than precipitation uncertainties. We find that three snow‐related variables (snow water equivalent, snowfall amount, and snowfall fraction) can be used to estimate the impact of air temperature uncertainties for different model output variables. In summary, this study provides insight into the impact of probabilistic data sets on hydrological modeling and quantifies the uncertainties in cryosphere basin modeling that stem from the meteorological forcing data.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".