IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v150y2018i3d10.1007_s10584-018-2280-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Uncertainties in projected runoff over the conterminous United States

Author

Listed:
  • Ignazio Giuntoli

    (University of Birmingham
    Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
    University of Iowa)

  • Gabriele Villarini

    (University of Iowa)

  • Christel Prudhomme

    (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology)

  • David M. Hannah

    (University of Birmingham)

Abstract

Projections of runoff from global multi-model ensembles provide a valuable basis for the estimation of future hydrological extremes. However, projections suffer from uncertainty that originates from different error sources along the modeling chain. Hydrological impact studies have generally partitioned these error sources into global impact and global climate model (GIM and GCM, respectively) uncertainties, neglecting other sources, including scenarios and internal variability. Using a set of GIMs driven by GCMs under different representative concentration pathways (RCPs), this study aims to partition the uncertainty of future flows coming from GIMs, GCMs, RCPs, and internal variability over the CONterminous United States (CONUS). We focus on annual maximum, median, and minimum runoff, analyzed decadally over the twenty-first century. Results indicate that GCMs and GIMs are responsible for the largest fraction of uncertainty over most of the study area, followed by internal variability and to a smaller extent RCPs. To investigate the influence of the ensemble setup on uncertainty, in addition to the full ensemble, three ensemble configurations are studied using fewer GIMs (excluding least credible GIMs in runoff representation and GIMs accounting for vegetation and CO2 dynamics), and excluding intermediate RCPs. Overall, the use of fewer GIMs has a minor impact on uncertainty for low and medium flows, but a substantial impact for high flows. Regardless of the number of pathways considered, RCPs always play a very small role, suggesting that improvement of GCMs and GIMs and more informed ensemble selections can yield a reduction of projected uncertainties.

Suggested Citation

  • Ignazio Giuntoli & Gabriele Villarini & Christel Prudhomme & David M. Hannah, 2018. "Uncertainties in projected runoff over the conterminous United States," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 149-162, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:150:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-018-2280-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-018-2280-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-018-2280-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-018-2280-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. S. Camici & L. Brocca & T. Moramarco, 2017. "Accuracy versus variability of climate projections for flood assessment in central Italy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 141(2), pages 273-286, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nima Fayaz & Laura E. Condon & David G. Chandler, 2020. "Evaluating the Sensitivity of Projected Reservoir Reliability to the Choice of Climate Projection: A Case Study of Bull Run Watershed, Portland, Oregon," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(6), pages 1991-2009, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:150:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-018-2280-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.