The Streamflow Response to Multi‐Day Warm Anomaly Events: Sensitivity to Future Warming and Spatiotemporal Variability by Event Magnitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Persistent warm temperature anomalies can drive streamflow in regions where snow and glacier melt are important constituents of streamflow. However, the spatiotemporal variability of the streamflow response depends on both the magnitude of the forcing temperature anomalies and the nature of the underlying hydrological system. Here we ask: when, where, and for what magnitude of temperature anomalies will the streamflow response change most rapidly under warming? We use observed streamflow and temperature for 868 basins across Canada to quantify the streamflow response during warm temperature anomalies and how such responses vary in space, time, and by anomaly magnitude. We first identify two temporal modes of the streamflow response, one in autumn and one in spring, the relative strength of which varies by climate. We then use sinusoidal approximations of seasonal temperature cycles to characterize the sensitivity of such modes to changes in annual temperature. At individual basins, we find that relative to moderate warm events, the streamflow response to more extreme warm events is more sensitive to changes in mean annual temperatures, and this sensitivity is greatest in the coastal, southern, and central regions of Canada. Our results have implications for how the hydrological impacts of extreme events, such as heatwaves, will change in space and time under future climate change.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".