Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 141, Issue 3, pp 419–433 | Cite as

Evaluation of sources of uncertainty in projected hydrological changes under climate change in 12 large-scale river basins

  • Tobias Vetter
  • Julia Reinhardt
  • Martina Flörke
  • Ann van Griensven
  • Fred Hattermann
  • Shaochun Huang
  • Hagen Koch
  • Ilias G. Pechlivanidis
  • Stefan Plötner
  • Ousmane Seidou
  • Buda Su
  • R. Willem Vervoort
  • Valentina Krysanova
Article

Abstract

This paper aims to evaluate sources of uncertainty in projected hydrological changes under climate change in twelve large-scale river basins worldwide, considering the mean flow and the two runoff quantiles Q10 (high flow), and Q90 (low flow). First, changes in annual low flow, annual high flow and mean annual runoff were evaluated using simulation results from a multi-hydrological-model (nine hydrological models, HMs) and a multi-scenario approach (four Representative Concentration Pathways, RCPs, five CMIP5 General Circulation Models, GCMs). Then, three major sources of uncertainty (from GCMs, RCPs and HMs) were analyzed using the ANOVA method, which allows for decomposing variances and indicating the main sources of uncertainty along the GCM-RCP-HM model chain. Robust changes in at least one runoff quantile or the mean flow, meaning a high or moderate agreement of GCMs and HMs, were found for five river basins: the Lena, Tagus, Rhine, Ganges, and Mackenzie. The analysis of uncertainties showed that in general the largest share of uncertainty is related to GCMs, followed by RCPs, and the smallest to HMs. The hydrological models are the lowest contributors of uncertainty for Q10 and mean flow, but their share is more significant for Q90.

Keywords

Emission Scenario Climate Change Impact Hydrological Model Representative Concentration Pathway Hydrological Change 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all regional-scale water sector modellers who uploaded their modelling results on the ISI-MIP server.

Supplementary material

10584_2016_1794_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (92 kb)
Online Resource 1 Table A1. Overview of the case studies: application of nine models in twelve river basins, and some characteristics of the basins. It was not possible to have the full coverage of all twelve basins by nine models. In four cases we used two outputs of the same model (HYMOD, HBV), applied by two modeler modelling groups for the same basins. (PDF 91 kb)
10584_2016_1794_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (102 kb)
Online Resource 2 Additional description of the applied ANOVA method (PDF 101 kb)
10584_2016_1794_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (625 kb)
Online Resource 3 Fig. A1. Overview of simulated trends for six basins: Number of HMs showing red: statistically significant negative, light gray: insignificant negative, dark gray: insignificant positive, blue: statistically significant positive trends in Q10 (upper rows), MF (middle rows) and Q90 (lower rows) for five GCMs (X axis) and 4 RCPs (left to right). Fig. A2. Overview of simulated trends for six basins: Number of HMs showing red: statistically significant negative, light gray: insignificant negative, dark gray: insignificant positive, blue: statistically significant positive trends in Q10 (upper rows), MF (middle rows) and Q90 (lower rows) for five GCMs (X axis) and 4 RCPs (left to right). Fig. A3. Temporal evolvement of total uncertainty and the share of uncertainty by GCMs, RCPs and HMs and their interaction terms for projected relative changes in three runoff quantiles: HF – Q10, MF – mean flow, LF – Q90 in six river basins: Niger (Lokoja), Darling, Lena, Upper Yangtze, Mackenzie and Ganges. (PDF 624 kb)

References

  1. Addor N, Rössler O, et al. (2014) Robust changes and sources of uncertainty in the projected hydrological regimes of Swiss catchments. Water Resour Res 50:7541–7562. doi: 10.1002/2014WR015549 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aich V, Liersch S, et al. (2014) Comparing impacts of climate change on streamflow in four large African river basins. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18:1305–1321. doi: 10.5194/hess-18-1305-2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beyene T, Lettenmaier DP (2010) Hydrologic impacts of climate change on the Nile River basin: implications of the 2007 IPCC scenarios. Clim Chang 100(3):433–461. doi: 10.1007/s10584-009-9693-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosshard T, Carambia M, et al. (2013) Quantifying uncertainty sources in an ensemble of hydrological climate-impact projections. Water Resour Res 49:1523–1536. doi: 10.1029/2011WR011533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiew FHS, Teng J, et al. (2009) Estimating climate change impact on runoff across Southeast Australia: method, results, and implications of the modeling method. Water Resour Res 45(10):W10414. doi: 10.1029/2008WR007338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology (2015) Climate change in Australia information for Australia’s natural resource management regions: technical report. CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, Australia http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/media/ccia/2.1.5/cms_page_media/168/CCIA_2015_NRM_TechnicalReport_WEB.pdf Google Scholar
  7. Ficklin D, Barnhart B (2014) SWAT hydrologic model parameter uncertainty and its implications for hydroclimatic projections in snowmelt-dependent watersheds. J Hydrol 519:2081–2090. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.09.082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Finger D, Vis M, et al. (2015) The value of multiple data set calibration versus model complexity for improving the performance of hydrological models in mountain catchments. Water Resour Res 51:1939–1958. doi: 10.1002/2014WR015712 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Forzieri G, Feyen L, et al. (2014) Ensemble projections of future streamflow droughts in Europe. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18:85–108. doi: 10.5194/hess-18-85-2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giuntoli I, Vidal J-P, et al. (2015) Future hydrological extremes: the uncertainty from multiple global climate and global hydrological models. Earth Syst. Dynam. 6:267–285. doi: 10.5194/esd-6-267-2015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gosling SN, Tayler RG, et al. (2011) A comparative analysis of projected impacts of climate change on river runoff from global and catchment-scale hydrological models. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15:279–294. doi: 10.5194/hess-15-279-2011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haddeland I, Clark DB, et al. (2011) Multimodel estimate of the global terrestrial water balance: setup and first results. J Hydrometeorol 12:869–884. doi: 10.1175/2011JHM1324.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hagemann S, Chen C, et al. (2011) Impact of a statistical bias correction on the projected hydrological changes obtained from three GCMs and two hydrological models. J Hydrometeor 12:556–578. doi: 10.1175/2011JHM1336.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hagemann S, Chen C, et al. (2013) Climate change impact on available water resources obtained using multiple global climate and hydrology models. Earth Syst Dynam 4:129–144. doi: 10.5194/esd-4-129-2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hempel S, Frieler K, et al. (2013) A trend-preserving bias correction – the ISI-MIP approach. Earth Syst Dynam 4:219–236. doi: 10.5194/esd-4-219-2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hirabayashi Y, Mahendran R, et al. (2013) Global flood risk under climate change. Nat Clim Chang 3:816–821. doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1911 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huang S, Krysanova V, et al. (2015) Projections of climate change impacts on floods and droughts in Germany using an ensemble of climate change scenarios. Reg Environ Chang 15(3):461–473. doi: 10.1007/s10113-014-0606-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kay AL, Davies HN, et al. (2009) Comparison of uncertainty sources for climate change impacts: flood frequency in England. Clim Chang 92:41–63. doi: 10.1007/s10584-008-9471-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kilsby CG, Tellier SS, et al. (2007) Hydrological impacts of climate change on the Tejo and Guadian rivers. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1175–1189. doi: 10.5194/hess-11-1175-2007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Masood M, Ye PJ-F, et al. (2015) Model study of the impacts of future climate change on the hydrology of Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna basin. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 19:747–770. doi: 10.5194/hess-19-747-2015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Najafi MR, Moradkhani H, et.al. (2011) Assessing the uncertainties of hydrologic model selection in climate change impact studies. Hydol Process 25:2814–2826. doi: 10.1002/hyp.8043
  22. Nakaegawa T, Kitoh A, et al. (2013) Discharge of major global rivers in the late twenty-first century climate projected with the high horizontal resolution MRI-AGCMs. Hydrol Process 27:3301–3318. doi: 10.1002/hyp.9831 Google Scholar
  23. Nohara D, Kitoh A, et al. (2006) Impact of climate change on river discharge projected by multimodel ensemble. J Hydrometeor 7:1076–1089. doi: 10.1175/JHM531.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Orth R, Staudinger M, et al. (2015) Does model performance improve with complexity? A case study with three hydrological models with three hydrological models. J Hydrol 523:147–159. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.01.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pechlivanidis IG, Arheimer B, et al. (2016) Analysis of hydrological extremes at different hydro-climatic regimes under present and future conditions. Clim Chang. doi: 10.1007/s10584-016-1723-0 Google Scholar
  26. Prudhomme C, Giuntoli I, et al. (2014) Hydrological droughts in the twenty-first century, hotspots and uncertainties from a global multimodel ensemble experiment. P Natl Acad Sci USA 111:3262–3267. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222473110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roehrig R, Bouniol D, et al. (2013) The present and duture of the West African Monsoon: A process-oriented assessment of CMIP5 simulations along the AMMA Transect. J Clim 26:6471–6505. doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00505.1
  28. Schewe J, Heinke J, et al. (2014) Multimodel assessment of water scarcity under climate change. P Natl Acad Sci USA 111:3245–3250. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222460110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shiklomanov IA, Shiklomanov AI (2003) Climatic change and the dynamics of river runoff into the Arctic Ocean. Water Res 30(6):593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sun F, Roderick ML, et al. (2011) Hydroclimatic projections for the Murray-Darling Basin based on an ensemble derived from intergovernmental panel on climate change AR4 climate models. Water Resour Res 47(12):W00G02. doi: 10.1029/2010WR009829 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Teng J, Vaze J, et al. (2012) Estimating the relative uncertainties sourced from GCMs and hydrological models in modeling climate change impact on runoff. J Hydrometeorol 13:122–139. doi: 10.1175/JHM-D-11-058.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Velázquez JA, Schmid J, et al. (2013) An ensemble approach to assess hydrological models’ contribution to uncertainties in the analysis of climate change impact on water resources. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17:565–578. doi: 10.5194/hess-17-565-2013
  33. Vetter T, Huang S, et al. (2015) Multi-model climate impact assessment and intercomparison for three large-scale river basins on three continents. Earth Syst. Dynam. 6:17–43. doi: 10.5194/esd-6-17-2015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wada Y, Wisser D, et al. (2013) Multimodel projections and uncertainties of irrigation water demand under climate change. Geophys Res Lett 40:4626–4632. doi: 10.1002/grl.50686 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Warszawski L, Frieler K, et al. (2014) The inter-sectoral impact model intercomparison project (ISI-MIP): project framework. P Natl Acad Sci 111:3228–3232. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1312330110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weedon GP, Gomes S, et al. (2011) Creation of the watch forcing data and its use to assess global and regional reference crop evaporation over land during the twentieth century. J Hydrometeorol 12:823–848. doi: 10.1175/2011JHM1369.1
  37. Zhang Y, Su F, et al. (2015) Impact of projected climate change on the hydrology in the headwaters of the Yellow River basin. Hydrol Process 29:4379–4397. doi: 10.1002/hyp.10497 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Vetter
    • 1
  • Julia Reinhardt
    • 1
  • Martina Flörke
    • 2
  • Ann van Griensven
    • 3
    • 4
  • Fred Hattermann
    • 1
  • Shaochun Huang
    • 1
  • Hagen Koch
    • 1
  • Ilias G. Pechlivanidis
    • 5
  • Stefan Plötner
    • 6
  • Ousmane Seidou
    • 7
  • Buda Su
    • 8
  • R. Willem Vervoort
    • 9
  • Valentina Krysanova
    • 1
  1. 1.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Center for Environmental Systems ResearchUniversity of KasselKasselGermany
  3. 3.Department of Hydrology and Hydraulic EngineeringVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  4. 4.UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water EducationDelftNetherlands
  5. 5.Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological InstituteNorrköpingSweden
  6. 6.Leibniz University of Hannover, Institute of Water Resources ManagementHannoverGermany
  7. 7.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  8. 8.National Climate Center, China Meteorological AdministrationNanjingPeople’s Republic of China
  9. 9.Centre for Carbon, Water and FoodThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations