Impacts of trends and uncertainties in river flooding due to climate change

Projected climate changes will have an effect on frequencies and duration of\ud river flooding and therefore on design criteria for dikes or on risk assessment. In\ud addition to existing sources of uncertainty, extremes and variability of climatological\ud input will change. To deal with this problem the purpose of this project can be split into\ud two main parts. First, to identify possible effects of climate changes on extreme\ud discharges of rivers and particularly the uncertainty involved. Second, to determine the\ud appropriate level of modelling needed to predict such effects taking into account the\ud uncertainties. The major subsystems are climate, catchment and river. Important aspects\ud are the additional uncertainty introduced by each subsystem and the appropriate level of\ud modelling a subsystem. In this paper some preliminary excersises to address these\ud questions with respect to catchment and river are shown, based on very schematic\ud models not representing any particular catchment

Use of regional climate model simulations as input for hydrological models for the Hindukush-Karakorum-Himalaya region

The most important climatological inputs required for the calibration and validation of hydrological models are temperature and precipitation that can be derived from observational records or alternatively from regional climate models (RCMs). In this paper, meteorological station observations and results of the PRECIS (Providing REgional Climate for Impact Studies) RCM driven by the outputs of reanalysis ERA 40 data and HadAM3P general circulation model (GCM) results are used as input in the hydrological model. The objective is to investigate the effect of precipitation and temperature simulated with the PRECIS RCM nested in these two data sets on discharge simulated with the HBV model for three river basins in the Hindukush-Karakorum-Himalaya (HKH) region. Six HBV model experiments are designed: HBV-Met, HBV-ERA and HBV-Had, HBV-MetCRU-corrected, HBV-ERABenchmark and HBV-HadBenchmark where HBV is driven by meteorological stations data, data from PRECIS nested in ERA-40 and HadAM3P, meteorological stations CRU corrected data, ERA-40 reanalysis and HadAM3P GCM data, respectively. Present day PRECIS simulations possess strong capacity to simulate spatial patterns of present day climate characteristics. However, also some quantitative biases exist in the HKH region, where PRECIS RCM simulations underestimate temperature and overestimate precipitation with respect to CRU observations. The calibration and validation results of the HBV model experiments show that the performance of HBV-Met is better than the HBV models driven by other data sources. However, using input data series from sources different from the data used in the model calibration shows that HBV-Had is more efficient than other models and HBV-Met has the least absolute relative error with respect to all other models. The uncertainties are higher in least efficient models (i.e. HBV-MetCRU-corrected and HBV-ERABenchmark) where the model parameters are also unrealistic. In terms of both robustness and uncertainty ranges the HBV models calibrated with PRECIS output performed better than other calibrated models except for HBV-Met which has shown a higher robustness. This suggests that in data sparse regions such as the HKH region data from regional climate models may be used as input in hydrological models for climate scenarios studies

Parsimonious Catchment and River Flow Modelling

It is increasingly the case that models are being developed as “evolving” products rather than\ud one-off application tools, such that auditable modelling versus ad hoc treatment of models becomes a\ud pivotal issue. Auditable modelling is particularly vital to “parsimonious modelling” aimed at meeting\ud specific modelling requirements. This paper outlines various contributory factors and aims to seed\ud proactively a research topic by inextricably linking value/risk management to parsimonious modelling.\ud Value management in modelling may be implemented in terms of incorporating “enough detail” into a\ud model so that the synergy among the constituent units of the model captures that of the real system. It is a\ud problem of diminishing returns, since further reductions in the constituent units will create an\ud unacceptable difference between the model and the real system; conversely, any further detail will add to\ud the cost of modelling without returning any significant benefit. The paper also defines risk management\ud in relation to modelling. It presents a qualitative framework for value/risk management towards\ud parsimonious modelling by the categorisation of “modelling techniques” in terms of “control volume.

Impacts of climate change on the seasonality of low flows in 134 catchments in the river Rhine basin using an ensemble of bias-corrected regional climate simulations. Discussion paper

The impacts of climate change on the seasonality of low flows are analysed for 134 sub-catchments covering the River Rhine basin upstream of the Dutch–German border. Three seasonality indices for low flows are estimated, namely seasonality ratio (SR), weighted mean occurrence day (WMOD) and weighted persistence (WP). These indices are related to the discharge regime, timing and variability in timing of low flow events respectively. The three indices are estimated from: (1) observed low flows; (2) simulated low flows by the semi distributed HBV model using observed climate; (3) simulated low flows using simulated inputs from seven climate scenarios for the current climate (1964–2007); (4) simulated low flows using simulated inputs from seven climate scenarios for the future climate (2063–2098) including different emission scenarios. These four cases are compared to assess the effects of the hydrological model, forcing by different climate models and different emission scenarios on the three indices. The seven climate scenarios are based on different combinations of four General Circulation Models (GCMs), four Regional Climate Models (RCMs) and three greenhouse gas emission scenarios.\ud \ud Significant differences are found between cases 1 and 2. For instance, the HBV model is prone to overestimate SR and to underestimate WP and simulates very late WMODs compared to the estimated WMODs using observed discharges. Comparing the results of cases 2 and 3, the smallest difference is found in the SR index, whereas large differences are found in the WMOD and WP indices for the current climate. Finally, comparing the results of cases 3 and 4, we found that SR has decreased substantially by 2063–2098 in all seven subbasins of the River Rhine. The lower values of SR for the future climate indicate a shift from winter low flows (SR > 1) to summer low flows (SR < 1) in the two Alpine subbasins. The WMODs of low flows tend to be earlier than for the current climate in all subbasins except for the Middle Rhine and Lower Rhine subbasins. The WP values are slightly larger, showing that the predictability of low flow events increases as the variability in timing decreases for the future climate. From comparison of the uncertainty sources evaluated in this study, it is obvious that the RCM/GCM uncertainty has the largest influence on the variability in timing of low flows for future climate

The skill of seasonal ensemble low-flow forecasts in the Moselle River for three different hydrological models

This paper investigates the skill of 90-day low-flow forecasts using two conceptual hydrological models and one data-driven model based on Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) for the Moselle River. The three models, i.e. HBV, GR4J and ANN-Ensemble (ANN-E), all use forecasted meteorological inputs (precipitation P and potential evapotranspiration PET), whereby we employ ensemble seasonal meteorological forecasts. We compared low-flow forecasts for five different cases of seasonal meteorological forcing: (1) ensemble P and PET forecasts; (2) ensemble P forecasts and observed climate mean PET; (3) observed climate mean P and ensemble PET forecasts; (4) observed climate mean P and PET and (5) zero P and ensemble PET forecasts as input for the models. The ensemble P and PET forecasts, each consisting of 40 members, reveal the forecast ranges due to the model inputs. The five cases are compared for a lead time of 90 days based on model output ranges, whereas the models are compared based on their skill of low-flow forecasts for varying lead times up to 90 days. Before forecasting, the hydrological models are calibrated and validated for a period of 30 and 20 years respectively. The smallest difference between calibration and validation performance is found for HBV, whereas the largest difference is found for ANN-E. From the results, it appears that all models are prone to over-predict runoff during low-flow periods using ensemble seasonal meteorological forcing. The largest range for 90-day low-flow forecasts is found for the GR4J model when using ensemble seasonal meteorological forecasts as input. GR4J, HBV and ANN-E under-predicted 90-day-ahead low flows in the very dry year 2003 without precipitation data. The results of the comparison of forecast skills with varying lead times show that GR4J is less skilful than ANN-E and HBV. Overall, the uncertainty from ensemble P forecasts has a larger effect on seasonal low-flow forecasts than the uncertainty from ensemble PET forecasts and initial model conditions