The ECOlogical Model for Applied Geophysics (ECOMAG) and the HYdrological Predictions for the Environment (HYPE) process-based hydrological models were set up to assess possible impacts of climate change on the hydrological regime of two pan-Arctic great drainage basins of the Lena and the Mackenzie Rivers. We firstly assessed the reliability of the hydrological models to reproduce the historical streamflow series and analyzed the hydrological projections driven by the climate change scenarios. The impacts were assessed for three 30-year periods (early- (2006–2035), mid- (2036–2065), and end-century (2070–2099)) using an ensemble of five global climate models (GCMs) and four Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios. Results show, particularly, that the basins react with a multi-year delay to changes in RCP2.6, so-called “mitigation” scenario, and consequently to the potential mitigation measures. Then, we assessed the hydrological projections’ variability, which is caused by the GCM’s and RCP’s uncertainties, and found that the variability rises with the time horizon of the projection, and generally, the projection variability is larger for the Mackenzie than for the Lena. We finally compared the mean annual runoff anomalies projected under the GCM-based data for the twenty-first century with the corresponding anomalies projected under a modified observed climatology using the delta-change method in the Lena basin. We found that the compared projections are closely correlated for the early-century period. Thus, for the Lena basin, the modified observed climatology can be used as driving force for hydrological model-based projections and considered as an alternative to the GCM-based scenarios.
Hydrological Model Representative Concentration Pathway Hydrological Response Representative Concentration Pathway Scenario Lena Basin
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors are very grateful to Guest Editor (Dr. Krysanova) and three anonymous reviewers for their critical and constructive comments. Also, we would like to thank Dr. Pechlivanidis for his valuable suggestions concerning the earliest draft and all ISI-MIP2 project partners who contributed to this study. The presented research of the ECOMAG-team related to the Lena River hydrological modeling was financially supported by the Russian Science Foundation (grant no. 14-17-00700). Part of the ECOMAG team research related to the Mackenzie River hydrological modeling was financially supported by the Russian Ministry of Education and Science (grant no. 14.B25.31.0026). The HYPE modeling was based on the Arctic-HYPE, which is developed within the WMO collaboration of Arctic-HYCOS. Results of the entire Arctic are presented at http://hypeweb.smhi.se. We would like to recognize the initial work done by Kristina Isberg and Dr. Yeshewa Hundecha at SMHI to facilitate the present study.
The present work was carried out within the framework of the Panta Rhei Research Initiative of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS).
Arheimer B, Dahné J, Donnelly C (2012) Climate change impact on riverine nutrient load and land-based remedial measures of the Baltic Sea Action Plan. Ambio 41:600–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aziz OIA, Burn DH (2006) Trends and variability in the hydrological regime of the Mackenzie River basin. J Hydrol 319:282–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartholomé E, Belward A (2005) GLC2000: a new approach to global land cover mapping from Earth observation data. Int J Remote Sens 26(9):1959–1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berezovskaya S, Yang D, Hinzman L (2005) Long-term annual water balance analysis of the Lena River. Glob Planet Chang 48(1–3):84–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiew FHS et al (2009) Estimating climate change impact on runoff across southeast Australia: method, results, and implications of the modelling method. Water Resour Res 45(W10414):2009. doi:10.1029/2008WR007338Google Scholar
Fischer G et al. (2008) Global agro-ecological zones assessment for agriculture (GAEZ 2008) IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria and FAO, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Flato G et al. (2013) Evaluation of climate models. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker TF et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
Kundzewicz ZW, Stakhiv EZ (2010) Are climate models “ready for prime time” in water resources management applications, or is more research needed? Hydrol Sci J 55(7):1085–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström G et al (2010) Development and test of the ARCTIC-HYPE (Hydrological Predictions for the Environment) model—a water quality model for different spatial scales. Hydrol Res 41(3–4):295–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mokhov II, Semenov VA, Khon VC (2003) Estimates of possible regional hydrologic regime changes in the 21st century based on global climate models. Izv Atmos Oceanic Phys 39(2):130Google Scholar
Motovilov Y et al (1999) Validation of a distributed hydrological model against spatial observation. Agric For Meteorol 98–99:257–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nijssen B et al (2001) Hydrologic sensitivity of global rivers to climate change. Clim Chang 50:143–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pechlivanidis IG et al (2011) Catchment scale hydrological modeling: a review of model types, calibration approaches and the uncertainty analysis methods in the context of recent developments in technology and applications. Glob NEST J 13(3):193–214Google Scholar
Seiller G, Anctil F (2014) Climate change impacts on the hydrologic regime of a Canadian river: comparing uncertainties arising from climate natural variability and lumped hydrological model structures. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18:2033–2047. doi:10.5194/hess-18-2033-2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiklomanov AI et al (2006) Cold region river discharge uncertainty estimates from large Russian rivers. J Hydrol 326:231–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teutschbein C, Wetterhall F, Seibert J (2011) Evaluation of different downscaling techniques for hydrological climate-change impact studies at the catchment scale. Clim Dynam 37:2087–2105. doi:10.1007/s00382-010-0979-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woo MK et al. (2008) The Mackenzie GEWEX Study: a contribution to cold region atmospheric and hydrologic sciences. In: Woo MK (Ed.), Cold Region Atmospheric and Hydrologic Studies, the Mackenzie GEWEX Experience, Atmospheric Dynamics 1:1–22.Google Scholar
Xu C, Widen E, Hallding S (2005) Modelling hydrological consequences of climate change—progress and challenges. Adv Atmos Sci 22(6):789–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar