Checking for non-preferred file/folder path names (may take a long time depending on the number of files/folders) ...
This resource contains some files/folders that have non-preferred characters in their name. Show non-conforming files/folders.
This resource contains content types with files that need to be updated to match with metadata changes. Show content type files that need updating.
Climate change impacts model parameter sensitivity - implications for calibration strategy and model diagnostic evaluation
| Authors: |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Owners: |
|
This resource does not have an owner who is an active HydroShare user. Contact CUAHSI (help@cuahsi.org) for information on this resource. |
| Type: | Resource | |
| Storage: | The size of this resource is 1.4 MB | |
| Created: | Jan 25, 2021 at 2:43 p.m. | |
| Last updated: | Sep 27, 2021 at 9:12 a.m. | |
| DOI: | 10.4211/hs.36e195451798497193628c235b537052 | |
| Citation: | See how to cite this resource |
| Sharing Status: | Published |
|---|---|
| Views: | 779 |
| Downloads: | 10 |
| +1 Votes: | Be the first one to this. |
| Comments: | No comments (yet) |
Abstract
Hydrological models are useful tools to explore the impact of climate change. To prioritize parameters for calibration and to evaluate hydrological model functioning, sensitivity analysis can be conducted. Parameter sensitivity, however, varies over climate, and therefore climate change could influence parameter sensitivity. In this study we explore the change in parameter sensitivity for the mean discharge and the timing of the discharge, within a plausible climate change rate. We investigate if changes in sensitivity propagate into the calibration strategy, and diagnostically compare three hydrological models based on the sensitivity results. We employed three frequently used hydrological models (SAC, VIC, and HBV), and explored parameter sensitivity changes across 605 catchments in the United States by comparing GCM(RCP8.5)-forced historical and future periods. Consistent among all hydrological models and both for the mean discharge and the timing of the discharge, is that the sensitivity of snow parameters decreases in the future. Which other parameters increase in sensitivity is less consistent among the hydrological models. In 45% to 55% of the catchments, dependent on the hydrological model, at least one parameter changes in the future in the top-5 most sensitive parameters for mean discharge. For the timing, this varies between 40% and 88%. This requires an adapted calibration strategy for long-term projections, for which we provide several suggestions. The disagreement among the models on the processes that become more relevant in future projections also calls for a strict evaluation of the adequacy of the model structure for long-term simulations.
Subject Keywords
Coverage
Spatial
Content
Related Resources
| This resource is described by | https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2020-179/ |
How to Cite
This resource is shared under the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Comments
There are currently no comments
New Comment