Votre recherche
Résultats 2 ressources
-
Abstract. Various methods are available for assessing uncertainties in climate impact studies. Among such methods, model weighting by expert elicitation is a practical way to provide a weighted ensemble of models for specific real-world impacts. The aim is to decrease the influence of improbable models in the results and easing the decision-making process. In this study both climate and hydrological models are analysed, and the result of a research experiment is presented using model weighting with the participation of six climate model experts and six hydrological model experts. For the experiment, seven climate models are a priori selected from a larger EURO-CORDEX (Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment – European Domain) ensemble of climate models, and three different hydrological models are chosen for each of the three European river basins. The model weighting is based on qualitative evaluation by the experts for each of the selected models based on a training material that describes the overall model structure and literature about climate models and the performance of hydrological models for the present period. The expert elicitation process follows a three-stage approach, with two individual rounds of elicitation of probabilities and a final group consensus, where the experts are separated into two different community groups: a climate and a hydrological modeller group. The dialogue reveals that under the conditions of the study, most climate modellers prefer the equal weighting of ensemble members, whereas hydrological-impact modellers in general are more open for assigning weights to different models in a multi-model ensemble, based on model performance and model structure. Climate experts are more open to exclude models, if obviously flawed, than to put weights on selected models in a relatively small ensemble. The study shows that expert elicitation can be an efficient way to assign weights to different hydrological models and thereby reduce the uncertainty in climate impact. However, for the climate model ensemble, comprising seven models, the elicitation in the format of this study could only re-establish a uniform weight between climate models.
-
Abstract A warmer climate impacts streamflows and these changes need to be quantified to assess future risk, vulnerability, and to implement efficient adaptation measures. The climate simulations from the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), which have been the basis of most such assessments over the past decade, are being gradually superseded by the more recent Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). Our study portrays the added value of the CMIP6 ensemble over CMIP5 in a first North America wide comparison using 3,107 catchments. Results show a reduced spread of the CMIP6 ensemble compared to the CMIP5 ensemble for temperature and precipitation projections. In terms of flow indicators, the CMIP6 driven hydrological projections result in a smaller spread of future mean and high flow values, except for mountainous areas. Overall, we assess that the CMIP6 ensemble provides a narrower band of uncertainty of future climate projections, bringing more confidence for hydrological impact studies. , Plain Language Summary Greenhouse gas emissions are causing the climate to warm significantly, which in turn impacts flows in rivers worldwide. To adapt to these changes, it is essential to quantify them and assess future risk and vulnerability. Climate models are the primary tools used to achieve this. The main data set that provides scientists with state‐of‐the‐art climate model simulations is known as the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). The fifth phase of that project (CMIP5) has been used over the past decade in multiple hydrological studies to assess the impacts of climate change on streamflow. The more recent sixth phase (CMIP6) has started to generate projections, which brings the following question: is it necessary to update the hydrological impact studies performed using CMIP5 with the new CMIP6 models? To answer this question, a comparison between CMIP5 and CMIP6 using 3,107 catchments over North America was conducted. Results show that there is less spread in temperature and precipitation projections for CMIP6. This translates into a smaller spread of future mean, high and low flow values, except for mountainous areas. Overall, we assess that using the CMIP6 data set would provide a more concerted range of future climate projections, leading to more confident hydrological impact studies. , Key Points A comparison of hydrological impacts using Coupled Model Intercomparison Project version 5 (CMIP5) and Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) ensembles is performed over 3,107 catchments in North America The CMIP6 ensembles provide a narrower band of uncertainty for hydrological indicators in the future It is recommended to update hydrological impact studies performed using CMIP5 with the CMIP6 ensemble