Votre recherche

Atmospheric reanalysis data provides a numerical description of global and regional water cycles by combining models and observations. These datasets are increasingly valuable as a substitute for observations in regions where these are scarce. They could significantly contribute to reducing losses by feeding flood early warning systems that can inform the population and guide civil security action. We assessed the suitability of two different precipitation and temperature reanalysis products readily available for predicting historic flooding of the La Chaudière River in Quebec: 1) Environment and Climate Change Canada's Regional Deterministic Reanalysis System (RDRS-v2) and 2) ERA5 from the Copernicus Climate Change Service. We exploited a multi-model hydrological ensemble prediction system that considers three sources of uncertainty: initial conditions, model structure, and weather forcing to produce streamflow forecasts up to 5 days into the future with a time step of 3 hours. These results are compared to a provincial reference product based on gauge measurements of the Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Lutte contre les Changements Climatiques. Then, five conceptual hydrological models were calibrated with three different meteorological datasets (RDRS-v2, ERA5, and observational gridded) and fed with two ensemble weather forecast products: 1) the Regional Ensemble Prediction System (REPS) from the Environment and Climate Change Canada and 2) the ensemble forecast issued by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF). Results reveal that the calibration of the model with reanalysis data as input delivered a higher accuracy in the streamflow simulation providing a useful resource for flood modeling where no other data is available. However, although the selection of the reanalysis is a determinant of capturing the flood volumes, selecting weather forecasts is more critical in anticipating discharge threshold exceedances.

Recent research has extended conventional hydrological algorithms into a hexagonal grid and noted that hydrological modeling on a hexagonal mesh grid outperformed that on a rectangular grid. Among the hydrological products, flow routing grids are the base of many other hydrological simulations, such as flow accumulation, watershed delineation, and stream networks. However, most of the previous research adopted the D6 algorithm, which is analogous to the D8 algorithm over a rectangular grid, to produce flow routing. This paper explored another four methods regarding generating flow directions in a hexagonal grid, based on four algorithms of slope aspect computation. We also developed and visualized hexagonal-grid-based hydrological operations, including flow accumulation, watershed delineation, and hydrological indices computation. Experiments were carried out across multiple grid resolutions with various terrain roughness. The results showed that flow direction can vary among different approaches, and the impact of such variation can propagate to flow accumulation, watershed delineation, and hydrological indices production, which was reflected by the cell-wise comparison and visualization. This research is practical for hydrological analysis in hexagonal, hierarchical grids, such as Discrete Global Grid Systems, and the developed operations can be used in flood modeling in the real world.

Abstract. Model intercomparison studies are carried out to test and compare the simulated outputs of various model setups over the same study domain. The Great Lakes region is such a domain of high public interest as it not only resembles a challenging region to model with its transboundary location, strong lake effects, and regions of strong human impact but is also one of the most densely populated areas in the USA and Canada. This study brought together a wide range of researchers setting up their models of choice in a highly standardized experimental setup using the same geophysical datasets, forcings, common routing product, and locations of performance evaluation across the 1×106 km2 study domain. The study comprises 13 models covering a wide range of model types from machine-learning-based, basin-wise, subbasin-based, and gridded models that are either locally or globally calibrated or calibrated for one of each of the six predefined regions of the watershed. Unlike most hydrologically focused model intercomparisons, this study not only compares models regarding their capability to simulate streamflow (Q) but also evaluates the quality of simulated actual evapotranspiration (AET), surface soil moisture (SSM), and snow water equivalent (SWE). The latter three outputs are compared against gridded reference datasets. The comparisons are performed in two ways – either by aggregating model outputs and the reference to basin level or by regridding all model outputs to the reference grid and comparing the model simulations at each grid-cell. The main results of this study are as follows: The comparison of models regarding streamflow reveals the superior quality of the machine-learning-based model in the performance of all experiments; even for the most challenging spatiotemporal validation, the machine learning (ML) model outperforms any other physically based model. While the locally calibrated models lead to good performance in calibration and temporal validation (even outperforming several regionally calibrated models), they lose performance when they are transferred to locations that the model has not been calibrated on. This is likely to be improved with more advanced strategies to transfer these models in space. The regionally calibrated models – while losing less performance in spatial and spatiotemporal validation than locally calibrated models – exhibit low performances in highly regulated and urban areas and agricultural regions in the USA. Comparisons of additional model outputs (AET, SSM, and SWE) against gridded reference datasets show that aggregating model outputs and the reference dataset to the basin scale can lead to different conclusions than a comparison at the native grid scale. The latter is deemed preferable, especially for variables with large spatial variability such as SWE. A multi-objective-based analysis of the model performances across all variables (Q, AET, SSM, and SWE) reveals overall well-performing locally calibrated models (i.e., HYMOD2-lumped) and regionally calibrated models (i.e., MESH-SVS-Raven and GEM-Hydro-Watroute) due to varying reasons. The machine-learning-based model was not included here as it is not set up to simulate AET, SSM, and SWE. All basin-aggregated model outputs and observations for the model variables evaluated in this study are available on an interactive website that enables users to visualize results and download the data and model outputs.

Abstract Streamflow sensitivity to different hydrologic processes varies in both space and time. This sensitivity is traditionally evaluated for the parameters specific to a given hydrologic model simulating streamflow. In this study, we apply a novel analysis over more than 3000 basins across North America considering a blended hydrologic model structure, which includes not only parametric, but also structural uncertainties. This enables seamless quantification of model process sensitivities and parameter sensitivities across a continuous set of models. It also leads to high-level conclusions about the importance of water cycle components on streamflow predictions, such as quickflow being the most sensitive process for streamflow simulations across the North American continent. The results of the 3000 basins are used to derive an approximation of sensitivities based on physiographic and climatologic data without the need to perform expensive sensitivity analyses. Detailed spatio-temporal inputs and results are shared through an interactive website.

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

Le nouveau rapport du GIEC dévoile que la désinformation en Amérique du Nord serait un frein important à l'adaptation.

Whether disasters influence adaptation actions in cities is contested. Yet, the extant knowledge base primarily consists of single or small-N case studies, so there is no global overview of the evidence on disaster impacts and adaptation. Here, we use regression analysis to explore the effects of disaster frequency and severity on four adaptation action types in 549 cities. In countries with greater adaptive capacity, economic losses increase city-level actions targeting recently experienced disaster event types, as well as actions to strengthen general disaster preparedness. An increase in disaster frequency reduces actions targeting hazard types other than those that recently occurred, while human losses have few effects. Comparisons between cities across levels of adaptive capacity indicate a wealth effect. More affluent countries incur greater economic damages from disasters, but also have higher governance capacity, creating both incentives and opportunities for adaptation measures. While disaster frequency and severity had a limited impact on adaptation actions overall, results are sensitive to which disaster impacts, adaptation action types, and adaptive capacities are considered.

This is a review article invited by Atmosphere-Ocean to document the contributions of Recherche en Prévision Numérique (RPN) to Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP). It is structured as a historical review and documents RPN’s contributions to numerical methods, numerical modelling, data assimilation, and ensemble systems, with a look ahead to potential future systems. Through this review, we highlight the evolution of RPN’s contributions. We begin with early NWP efforts and continue through to environmental predictions with a broad range of applications. This synthesis is intended to be a helpful reference, consolidating developments and generating broader interest for future work on NWP in Canada.

Rangecroft et al. provide an important and interesting paper on the challenges of interdisciplinary research and fieldwork with participants in water resource management. The paper shows the challenges of interaction between their research areas and demonstrates the importance of how a researcher interacts with their selected study sites. My key points reflect the use of different methodologies within social and natural sciences and across them as well as the main challenge of who has the power to influence the research directions. Research is not value-free and is highly influenced by one’s own training and knowledge, which needs to be addressed in the research activities. Finally, an option might be to move beyond interdisciplinary constraints and to work within a stronger transdisciplinary framework. Water research very much needs to interact with non-academic people to understand the challenges and possible solutions.

Abstract The performance of adaptation measures depends on their robustness against various possible futures, with varying climate change impacts. Such impacts are driven by both climatic as well as non-climatic drivers. Risk dynamics are then important, as the avoided risk will determine the benefits of adaptation actions. It is argued that the integration of information on changing exposure and vulnerability is needed to make projections of future climate risk more realistic. In addition, many impact and vulnerability studies have used a top-down rather a technical approach. Whether adaptation action is feasible is determined by technical and physical possibilities on the ground, as well as local capacities, governance and preference. These determine the hard and soft limits of adaptation. Therefore, it is argued that the risk metrics outputs alone are not sufficient to predict adaptation outcomes, or predict where adaptation is feasible or not; they must be placed in the local context. Several of the current climate risk products would fall short of their promise to inform adaptation decision-making on the ground. Some steps are proposed to improve adaptation modelling in order to better incorporate these aspects.