IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v163y2020i3d10.1007_s10584-020-02902-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of two model calibration approaches and their influence on future projections under climate change in the Upper Indus Basin

Author

Listed:
  • Muhammad Fraz Ismail

    (Technical University of Munich
    University of Applied Sciences Koblenz)

  • Bibi S. Naz

    (Institute of Bio and Geosciences: Agrosphere (IBG-3))

  • Michel Wortmann

    (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research)

  • Markus Disse

    (Technical University of Munich)

  • Laura C. Bowling

    (Purdue University)

  • Wolfgang Bogacki

    (University of Applied Sciences Koblenz)

Abstract

This study performs a comparison of two model calibration/validation approaches and their influence on future hydrological projections under climate change by employing two climate scenarios (RCP2.6 and 8.5) projected by four global climate models. Two hydrological models (HMs), snowmelt runoff model + glaciers and variable infiltration capacity model coupled with a glacier model, were used to simulate streamflow in the highly snow and glacier melt–driven Upper Indus Basin. In the first (conventional) calibration approach, the models were calibrated only at the basin outlet, while in the second (enhanced) approach intermediate gauges, different climate conditions and glacier mass balance were considered. Using the conventional and enhanced calibration approaches, the monthly Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) for both HMs ranged from 0.71 to 0.93 and 0.79 to 0.90 in the calibration, while 0.57–0.92 and 0.54–0.83 in the validation periods, respectively. For the future impact assessment, comparison of differences based on the two calibration/validation methods at the annual scale (i.e. 2011–2099) shows small to moderate differences of up to 10%, whereas differences at the monthly scale reached up to 19% in the cold months (i.e. October–March) for the far future period. Comparison of sources of uncertainty using analysis of variance showed that the contribution of HM parameter uncertainty to the overall uncertainty is becoming very small by the end of the century using the enhanced approach. This indicates that enhanced approach could potentially help to reduce uncertainties in the hydrological projections when compared to the conventional calibration approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad Fraz Ismail & Bibi S. Naz & Michel Wortmann & Markus Disse & Laura C. Bowling & Wolfgang Bogacki, 2020. "Comparison of two model calibration approaches and their influence on future projections under climate change in the Upper Indus Basin," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(3), pages 1227-1246, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:163:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-020-02902-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-020-02902-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-020-02902-3
    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/s10584-020-02902-3?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. Jianting Zhu & William Forsee & Rina Schumer & Mahesh Gautam, 2013. "Future projections and uncertainty assessment of extreme rainfall intensity in the United States from an ensemble of climate models," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 469-485, May.
    2. Hamish D. Pritchard, 2019. "Asia’s shrinking glaciers protect large populations from drought stress," Nature, Nature, vol. 569(7758), pages 649-654, May.
    3. Valentina Krysanova & Fred F. Hattermann, 2017. "Intercomparison of climate change impacts in 12 large river basins: overview of methods and summary of results," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 141(3), pages 363-379, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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.
    1. Liu, Mengyu & Zhou, Xiong & Huang, Guohe & Li, Yongping, 2024. "The increasing water stress projected for China could shift the agriculture and manufacturing industry geographically," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 124431, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Jinglin Zhang & Wei Zhang & Shiwei Liu & Weiming Kong & Wei Zhang, 2022. "Cryosphere Services to Advance the National SDG Priorities in Himalaya-Karakoram Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, February.
    3. Wanlu Liu & Lulu Liu & Jiangbo Gao, 2020. "Adapting to climate change: gaps and strategies for Central Asia," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 1439-1459, December.
    4. Xiaowei Lyu & Yong Zhang & Huanhuan Wang & Xin Wang, 2024. "Mass Balance of Maritime Glaciers in the Southeastern Tibetan Plateau during Recent Decades," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-23, August.
    5. Zhirong Chen & Binghua Gong & Jiayi Jiang & Zhifeng Liu & Kelong Chen, 2021. "Dynamics of the Urban Water Footprint on the Tibetan Plateau: A Case Study of Xining, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-15, April.
    6. Ekaterina P. Rets & Ivan N. Durmanov & Maria B. Kireeva & Andrew M. Smirnov & Viktor V. Popovnin, 2020. "Past ‘peak water’ in the North Caucasus: deglaciation drives a reduction in glacial runoff impacting summer river runoff and peak discharges," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(4), pages 2135-2151, December.
    7. Shanshan Wen & Buda Su & Yanjun Wang & Jianqing Zhai & Hemin Sun & Ziyan Chen & Jinlong Huang & Anqian Wang & Tong Jiang, 2020. "Comprehensive evaluation of hydrological models for climate change impact assessment in the Upper Yangtze River Basin, China," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(3), pages 1207-1226, December.
    8. Shaochun Huang & Harsh Shah & Bibi S. Naz & Narayan Shrestha & Vimal Mishra & Prasad Daggupati & Uttam Ghimire & Tobias Vetter, 2020. "Impacts of hydrological model calibration on projected hydrological changes under climate change—a multi-model assessment in three large river basins," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(3), pages 1143-1164, December.
    9. Valentina Krysanova & Fred F. Hattermann & Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz, 2020. "How evaluation of hydrological models influences results of climate impact assessment—an editorial," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(3), pages 1121-1141, December.
    10. Yog Aryal & Jianting Zhu, 2017. "On bias correction in drought frequency analysis based on climate models," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 361-374, February.
    11. Kairui Guo & Yong Huang & Dan Chen, 2022. "Analysis of the Expansion Characteristics of Rural Settlements Based on Scale Growth Function in Himalayan Region," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, March.
    12. Muhammad Shafeeque & Abid Sarwar & Abdul Basit & Abdelmoneim Zakaria Mohamed & Muhammad Waseem Rasheed & Muhammad Usman Khan & Noman Ali Buttar & Naeem Saddique & Mohammad Irfan Asim & Rehan Mehmood S, 2022. "Quantifying the Impact of the Billion Tree Afforestation Project (BTAP) on the Water Yield and Sediment Load in the Tarbela Reservoir of Pakistan Using the SWAT Model," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-20, September.
    13. Bo Su & Cunde Xiao & Deliang Chen & Dahe Qin & Yongjian Ding, 2019. "Cryosphere Services and Human Well-Being," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-23, August.
    14. A. Chamorro & P. Kraft & G. Pauer & J.-F. Exbrayat & L. Breuer, 2017. "Effect of (quasi-)optimum model parameter sets and model characteristics on future discharge projection of two basins from Europe and Asia," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 559-573, June.

    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:163:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-020-02902-3. 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.