How the performance of hydrological models relates to credibility of projections under climate change

被引:163
作者
Krysanova, Valentina [1 ]
Donnelly, Chantal [2 ]
Gelfan, Alexander [3 ,6 ]
Gerten, Dieter [4 ]
Arheimer, Berit [2 ]
Hattermann, Fred [1 ]
Kundzewicz, Zbigniew W. [1 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Potsdam Inst Climate Impact Res, Res Domain Climate Impacts & Vulnerabil 2, Potsdam, Germany
[2] Swedish Meteorol & Hydrol Inst, Hydrol Res Dept, Norrkoping, Sweden
[3] Russian Acad Sci, Inst Water Problems, Watershed Hydrol Lab, Moscow, Russia
[4] Potsdam Inst Climate Impact Res, Res Domain Earth Syst Anal 1, Potsdam, Germany
[5] Polish Acad Sci, Inst Agr & Forest Environm, Dept Climate & Water Resources, Poznan, Poland
[6] Moscow MV Lomonosov State Univ, Fac Geog, Moscow, Russia
来源
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL-JOURNAL DES SCIENCES HYDROLOGIQUES | 2018年 / 63卷 / 05期
基金
俄罗斯科学基金会;
关键词
hydrological model performance; climate change impact; uncertainty of projections; calibration and validation; rejecting model as outlier; guidelines for model evaluation; GLOBAL WATER-RESOURCES; SCALE RIVER-BASINS; CHANGE IMPACTS; QUALITY MODEL; UNCERTAINTY; RUNOFF; FUTURE; SIMULATION; FRAMEWORK; PREDICTIONS;
D O I
10.1080/02626667.2018.1446214
中图分类号
TV21 [水资源调查与水利规划];
学科分类号
081501 ;
摘要
Two approaches can be distinguished in studies of climate change impacts on water resources when accounting for issues related to impact model performance: (1) using a multi-model ensemble disregarding model performance, and (2) using models after their evaluation and considering model performance. We discuss the implications of both approaches in terms of credibility of simulated hydrological indicators for climate change adaptation. For that, we discuss and confirm the hypothesis that a good performance of hydrological models in the historical period increases confidence in projected impacts under climate change, and decreases uncertainty of projections related to hydrological models. Based on this, we find the second approach more trustworthy and recommend using it for impact assessment, especially if results are intended to support adaptation strategies. Guidelines for evaluation of global- and basin-scale models in the historical period, as well as criteria for model rejection from an ensemble as an outlier, are also suggested.
引用
收藏
页码:696 / 720
页数:25
相关论文
共 125 条
[11]   A COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE-GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL [J].
ARNOLD, JG ;
ALLEN, PM ;
BERNHARDT, G .
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 1993, 142 (1-4) :47-69
[12]   Global evaluation of runoff from 10 state-of-the-art hydrological models [J].
Beck, Hylke E. ;
van Dijk, Albert I. J. M. ;
de Roo, Ad ;
Dutra, Emanuel ;
Fink, Gabriel ;
Orth, Rene ;
Schellekens, Jaap .
HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2017, 21 (06) :2881-2903
[13]   Global-scale regionalization of hydrologic model parameters [J].
Beck, Hylke E. ;
van Dijk, Albert I. J. M. ;
de Roo, Ad ;
Miralles, Diego G. ;
McVicar, Tim R. ;
Schellekens, Jaap ;
Bruijnzeel, L. Adrian .
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, 2016, 52 (05) :3599-3622
[14]   Climate change impacts on runoff in Sweden -: assessments by global climate models, dynamical downscaling and hydrological modelling [J].
Bergström, S ;
Carlsson, B ;
Gardelin, M ;
Lindström, G ;
Pettersson, A ;
Rummukainen, M .
CLIMATE RESEARCH, 2001, 16 (02) :101-112
[15]  
Bergstrom S., 1976, SMHI Report RHO 7, V7, pISSN0347
[16]   A manifesto for the equifinality thesis [J].
Beven, K .
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2006, 320 (1-2) :18-36
[17]   THE FUTURE OF DISTRIBUTED MODELS - MODEL CALIBRATION AND UNCERTAINTY PREDICTION [J].
BEVEN, K ;
BINLEY, A .
HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES, 1992, 6 (03) :279-298
[18]  
Beven K., 2009, Environmental Modelling: An Uncertain Future
[19]   Facets of uncertainty: epistemic uncertainty, non-stationarity, likelihood, hypothesis testing, and communication [J].
Beven, Keith .
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL-JOURNAL DES SCIENCES HYDROLOGIQUES, 2016, 61 (09) :1652-1665
[20]   GLUE: 20 years on [J].
Beven, Keith ;
Binley, Andrew .
HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES, 2014, 28 (24) :5897-5918