Articles | Volume 27, issue 23
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-4355-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-4355-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
11 Dec 2023
Research article |
| 11 Dec 2023
| 11 Dec 2023
Understanding the influence of “hot” models in climate impact studies: a hydrological perspective
Mehrad Rahimpour Asenjan
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Hydrology, Climate and Climate Change Laboratory, École de technologie supérieure, Université du Québec, 1100 Notre-Dame Street West, Montréal, Quebec, H3C 1K3, Canada
Francois Brissette
Hydrology, Climate and Climate Change Laboratory, École de technologie supérieure, Université du Québec, 1100 Notre-Dame Street West, Montréal, Quebec, H3C 1K3, Canada
Jean-Luc Martel
Hydrology, Climate and Climate Change Laboratory, École de technologie supérieure, Université du Québec, 1100 Notre-Dame Street West, Montréal, Quebec, H3C 1K3, Canada
Richard Arsenault
Hydrology, Climate and Climate Change Laboratory, École de technologie supérieure, Université du Québec, 1100 Notre-Dame Street West, Montréal, Quebec, H3C 1K3, Canada
Related authors
Mehrad Rahimpour Asenjan, Francois Brissette, Richard Arsenault, and Jean-Luc Martel
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1183, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1183, 2024
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
Our study examines how combining climate models impacts future streamflow predictions, crucial for understanding climate change. Comparing six methods across 3,107 North American catchments, we found unequal weighting significantly improves rainfall and temperature projections. However, for streamflow, both equal and unequal weighting perform similarly with bias correction. Our findings underscore the need to carefully select weighting methods and correct biases for accurate climate projections.
Jean-Luc Martel, François Brissette, Richard Arsenault, Richard Turcotte, Mariana Castañeda-Gonzalez, William Armstrong, Edouard Mailhot, Jasmine Pelletier-Dumont, Gabriel Rondeau-Genesse, and Louis-Philippe Caron
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 2811–2836, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2811-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2811-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study compares long short-term memory (LSTM) neural networks with traditional hydrological models to predict future streamflow under climate change. Using data from 148 catchments, it finds that LSTM models, which learn from extensive data sequences, perform differently and often better than traditional hydrological models. The continental LSTM model, which includes data from diverse climate zones, is particularly effective for understanding climate impacts on water resources.
Frédéric Talbot, Jean-Daniel Sylvain, Guillaume Drolet, Annie Poulin, and Richard Arsenault
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3353, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3353, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This research explores different modelling approaches within a distributed and physically based hydrological model, emphasizing configurations that integrate groundwater recharge and dynamics. The study demonstrates that precise adjustments in model calibration can enhance the accuracy and representation of hydrological variables, which are crucial for effective water management and climate change adaptation strategies.
Frédéric Talbot, Simon Ricard, Jean-Daniel Sylvain, Guillaume Drolet, Annie Poulin, Jean-Luc Martel, and Richard Arsenault
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3037, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3037, 2024
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
This study compares two hydrological modeling approaches for assessing climate change impacts on water systems. We evaluate the conventional method alongside the asynchronous method, which excels in capturing extreme events but faces challenges with event timing. Our findings suggest that a semi-asynchronous approach, blending the strengths of both methods, could offer better results. This research provides key insights for supporting sustainable resource planning in a changing climate.
Jean-Luc Martel, Richard Arsenault, Richard Turcotte, Mariana Castañeda-Gonzalez, François Brissette, William Armstrong, Edouard Mailhot, Jasmine Pelletier-Dumont, Simon Lachance-Cloutier, Gabriel Rondeau-Genesse, and Louis-Philippe Caron
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2134, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2134, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study explores six methods to improve the ability of Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) neural networks to predict peak streamflows, crucial for flood analysis. By enhancing data inputs and model techniques, the research shows LSTM models can match or surpass traditional hydrological models in simulating peak flows. Tested on 88 catchments in Quebec, Canada, these methods offer promising strategies for better flood prediction.
Mehrad Rahimpour Asenjan, Francois Brissette, Richard Arsenault, and Jean-Luc Martel
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1183, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1183, 2024
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
Our study examines how combining climate models impacts future streamflow predictions, crucial for understanding climate change. Comparing six methods across 3,107 North American catchments, we found unequal weighting significantly improves rainfall and temperature projections. However, for streamflow, both equal and unequal weighting perform similarly with bias correction. Our findings underscore the need to carefully select weighting methods and correct biases for accurate climate projections.
Richard Arsenault, Jean-Luc Martel, Frédéric Brunet, François Brissette, and Juliane Mai
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 139–157, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-139-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-139-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Predicting flow in rivers where no observation records are available is a daunting task. For decades, hydrological models were set up on these gauges, and their parameters were estimated based on the hydrological response of similar or nearby catchments where records exist. New developments in machine learning have now made it possible to estimate flows at ungauged locations more precisely than with hydrological models. This study confirms the performance superiority of machine learning models.
Juliane Mai, Hongren Shen, Bryan A. Tolson, Étienne Gaborit, Richard Arsenault, James R. Craig, Vincent Fortin, Lauren M. Fry, Martin Gauch, Daniel Klotz, Frederik Kratzert, Nicole O'Brien, Daniel G. Princz, Sinan Rasiya Koya, Tirthankar Roy, Frank Seglenieks, Narayan K. Shrestha, André G. T. Temgoua, Vincent Vionnet, and Jonathan W. Waddell
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3537–3572, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3537-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3537-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Model intercomparison studies are carried out to test various models and compare the quality of their outputs over the same domain. In this study, 13 diverse model setups using the same input data are evaluated over the Great Lakes region. Various model outputs – such as streamflow, evaporation, soil moisture, and amount of snow on the ground – are compared using standardized methods and metrics. The basin-wise model outputs and observations are made available through an interactive website.
Mostafa Tarek, François Brissette, and Richard Arsenault
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3331–3350, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3331-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3331-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
It is not known how much uncertainty the choice of a reference data set may bring to impact studies. This study compares precipitation and temperature data sets to evaluate the uncertainty contribution to the results of climate change studies. Results show that all data sets provide good streamflow simulations over the reference period. The reference data sets also provided uncertainty that was equal to or larger than that related to general circulation models over most of the catchments.
Cited articles
Arsenault, R., Brissette, F., Chen, J., Guo, Q., and Dallaire, G.: NAC 2 H: The North American Climate Change and Hydroclimatology Data Set, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2020WR027097, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR027097, 2020a.
Arsenault, R., Brissette, F., Martel, J.-L., Troin, M., Lévesque, G., Davidson-Chaput, J., Gonzalez, M. C., Ameli, A., and Poulin, A.: A comprehensive, multisource database for hydrometeorological modeling of 14,425 North American watersheds, Sci. Data, 7, 243, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-00583-2, 2020b.
Arsenault, R., Brissette, F., Martel, J.-L., Troin, M., Lévesque, G., Davidson-Chaput, J., Castañeda Gonzalez, M., Ameli, A., and Poulin, A.: HYSETS – A 14425 watershed Hydrometeorological Sandbox over North America, OSF [data set], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RPC3W, 2022.
Bellouin, N., Quaas, J., Gryspeerdt, E., Kinne, S., Stier, P., Watson-Parris, D., Boucher, O., Carslaw, K. S., Christensen, M., Daniau, A.-L., Dufresne, J.-L., Feingold, G., Fiedler, S., Forster, P., Gettelman, A., Haywood, J. M., Lohmann, U., Malavelle, F., Mauritsen, T., McCoy, D. T., Myhre, G., Mülmenstädt, J., Neubauer, D., Possner, A., Rugenstein, M., Sato, Y., Schulz, M., Schwartz, S. E., Sourdeval, O., Storelvmo, T., Toll, V., Winker, D., and Stevens, B.: Bounding Global Aerosol Radiative Forcing of Climate Change, Re. Geophys., 58, e2019RG000660, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000660, 2020.
Cannon, A. J.: Multivariate quantile mapping bias correction: An N-dimensional probability density function transform for climate model simulations of multiple variables, Clim. Dynam., 50, 31–49, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3580-6, 2018.
Cannon, A. J., Piani, C., and Sippel, S.: Bias correction of climate model output for impact models, in: Climate Extremes and Their Implications for Impact and Risk Assessment, Elsevier, 77–104, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814895-2.00005-7, 2020.
Chen, J., Brissette, F. P., Poulin, A., and Leconte, R.: Overall uncertainty study of the hydrological impacts of climate change for a Canadian watershed, Water Resour. Res., 47, W12509, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010602, 2011.
Chen, J., Brissette, F. P., and Lucas-Picher, P.: Transferability of optimally-selected climate models in the quantification of climate change impacts on hydrology, Clim. Dynam., 47, 3359–3372, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3030-x, 2016.
Chen, J., Brissette, F. P., Lucas-Picher, P., and Caya, D.: Impacts of weighting climate models for hydro-meteorological climate change studies, J. Hydrol., 549, 534–546, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.04.025, 2017.
Chen, J., Li, C., Brissette, F. P., Chen, H., Wang, M., and Essou, G. R.: Impacts of correcting the inter-variable correlation of climate model outputs on hydrological modeling, J. Hydrol., 560, 326–341, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.03.040, 2018.
Collins, M., Knutti, R., Arblaster, J., Dufresne, J.-L., Fichefet, T., Gao, X., Gutowski Jr., W. J., Johns, T., Krinner, G., Shongwe, M., Weaver, A. J., Wehner, M., Allen, M. R., Andrews, T., Beyerle, U., Bitz, C. M., Bony, S., Booth, B. B. B., Brooks, H. E., Brovkin, V., Browne, O., Brutel-Vuilmet, C., Cane, M., Chadwick, R., Cook, E., Cook, K. H., Eby, M., Fasullo, J., Forest, C. E., Forster, P., Good, P., Goosse, H., Gregory, J. M., Hegerl, G. C., Hezel, P. J., Hodges, K. I., Holland, M. M., Huber, M., Joshi, M., Kharin, V., Kushnir, Y., Lawrence, D. M., Lee, R. W., Liddicoat, S., Lucas, C., Lucht, W., Marotzke, J., Massonnet, F., Matthews, H. D., Meinshausen, M., Morice, C., Otto, A., Patricola, C. M., Philippon, G., Rahmstorf, S., Riley, W. J., Saenko, O., Seager, R., Sedláček, J., Shaffrey, L. C., Shindell, D., Sillmann, J., Stevens, B., Stott, P. A., Webb, R., Zappa, G., Zickfeld, K., Joussaume, S., Mokssit, A., Taylor, K., and Tett, S.: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility, in: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 1029–1136, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1 (last access: 12 November 2022), 2013.
Cox, P. M., Huntingford, C., and Williamson, M. S.: Emergent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability, Nature, 553, 319–322, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25450, 2018.
dos Santos, F. M., de Oliveira, R. P., and Mauad, F. F.: Lumped versus distributed hydrological modeling of the Jacaré-Guaçu Basin, Brazil, J. Environ. Eng., 144, 04018056, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001397, 2018.
ESGF – Earth System Grid Federation: CMIP6 GCM data, https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/search/cmip6/ (last access: 18 July 2022), 2022.
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016.
Eyring, V., Cox, P. M., Flato, G. M., Gleckler, P. J., Abramowitz, G., Caldwell, P., Collins, W. D., Gier, B. K., Hall, A. D., Hoffman, F. M., Hurtt, G. C., Jahn, A., Jones, C. D., Klein, S. A., Krasting, J. P., Kwiatkowski, L., Lorenz, R., Maloney, E., Meehl, G. A., Pendergrass, A. G., Pincus, R., Ruane, A. C., Russell, J. L., Sanderson, B. M., Santer, B. D., Sherwood, S. C., Simpson, I. R., Stouffer, R. J., and Williamson, M. S.: Taking climate model evaluation to the next level, Nat. Clim. Change, 9, 102–110, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0355-y, 2019.
Flynn, C. M. and Mauritsen, T.: On the climate sensitivity and historical warming evolution in recent coupled model ensembles, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 7829–7842, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-7829-2020, 2020.
Forster, P. M., Andrews, T., Good, P., Gregory, J. M., Jackson, L. S., and Zelinka, M.: Evaluating adjusted forcing and model spread for historical and future scenarios in the CMIP5 generation of climate models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 1139–1150, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50174, 2013.
Giuntoli, I., Villarini, G., Prudhomme, C., and Hannah, D. M.: Uncertainties in projected runoff over the conterminous United States, Climatic Change, 150, 149–162, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2280-5, 2018.
Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K., and Martinez, G. F.: Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling, J. Hydrol., 377, 80–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003, 2009.
Hausfather, Z. and Peters, G. P.: Emissions – the `business as usual' story is misleading, Nature, 577, 618–620, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00177-3, 2020.
Hausfather, Z., Marvel, K., Schmidt, G. A., Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., and Zelinka, M.: Climate simulations: recognize the `hot model' problem, Nature, 605, 26–29, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01192-2, 2022.
Hirabayashi, Y., Tanoue, M., Sasaki, O., Zhou, X., and Yamazaki, D.: Global exposure to flooding from the new CMIP6 climate model projections, Sci. Rep., 11, 3740, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83279-w, 2021.
IPCC: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, in: Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr (last access: 18 October 2022), 2014.
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Technical Summary, in: Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 35–144, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.002, 2023.
Karlsson, I. B., Sonnenborg, T. O., Refsgaard, J. C., Trolle, D., Børgesen, C. D., Olesen, J. E., Jeppesen, E., and Jensen, K. H.: Combined effects of climate models, hydrological model structures and land use scenarios on hydrological impacts of climate change, J. Hydrol., 535, 301–317, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.01.069, 2016.
Knoben, W. J. M., Freer, J. E., and Woods, R. A.: Technical note: Inherent benchmark or not? Comparing Nash–Sutcliffe and Kling–Gupta efficiency scores, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 4323–4331, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4323-2019, 2019.
Knutti, R.: The end of model democracy?: An editorial comment, Climatic Change, 102, 395–404, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9800-2, 2010.
Knutti, R., Rugenstein, M. A. A., and Hegerl, G. C.: Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity, Nat. Geosci., 10, 727–736, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo3017, 2017.
Kreienkamp, F., Lorenz, P., and Geiger, T.: Statistically Downscaled CMIP6 Projections Show Stronger Warming for Germany, Atmosphere, 11, 1245, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11111245, 2020.
Krysanova, V., Donnelly, C., Gelfan, A., Gerten, D., Arheimer, B., Hattermann, F., and Kundzewicz, Z. W.: How the performance of hydrological models relates to credibility of projections under climate change, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 63, 696–720, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2018.1446214, 2018.
Liang, Y., Gillett, N. P., and Monahan, A. H.: Climate Model Projections of 21st Century Global Warming Constrained Using the Observed Warming Trend, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL086757, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086757, 2020.
Maraun, D.: Bias correcting climate change simulations – a critical review, Curr. Clim. Change Rep., 2, 211–220, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-016-0050-x, 2016.
Martel, J.-L., Brissette, F., Troin, M., Arsenault, R., Chen, J., Su, T., and Lucas-Picher, P.: CMIP5 and CMIP6 Model Projection Comparison for Hydrological Impacts Over North America, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL098364, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL098364, 2022.
Meehl, G. A., Covey, C., Delworth, T., Latif, M., McAvaney, B., Mitchell, J. F. B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: THE WCRP CMIP3 Multimodel Dataset: A New Era in Climate Change Research, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 88, 1383–1394, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-88-9-1383, 2007.
Miara, A., Macknick, J. E., Vörösmarty, C. J., Tidwell, V. C., Newmark, R., and Fekete, B.: Climate and water resource change impacts and adaptation potential for US power supply, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 793–798, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3417, 2017.
Nash, J. E. and Sutcliffe, J. V.: River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I – A discussion of principles, J. Hydrol., 10, 282–290, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6, 1970.
Nijsse, F. J. M. M., Cox, P. M., and Williamson, M. S.: Emergent constraints on transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from historical warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 737–750, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-737-2020, 2020.
Palmer, T. E., McSweeney, C. F., Booth, B. B. B., Priestley, M. D. K., Davini, P., Brunner, L., Borchert, L., and Menary, M. B.: Performance-based sub-selection of CMIP6 models for impact assessments in Europe, Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 457–483, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-457-2023, 2023.
Perrin, C., Michel, C., and Andréassian, V.: Improvement of a parsimonious model for streamflow simulation, J. Hydrol., 279, 275–289, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00225-7, 2003.
Prajapati, S., Sabokruhie, P., Brinkmann, M., and Lindenschmidt, K.-E.: Modelling Transport and Fate of Copper and Nickel across the South Saskatchewan River Using WASP–TOXI, Water, 15, 2, https://doi.org/10.3390/w15020265, 2023.
Reed, S., Koren, V., Smith, M., Zhang, Z., Moreda, F., Seo, D.-J., and Participants, D.: Overall distributed model intercomparison project results, J. Hydrol., 298, 27–60, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.031, 2004.
Reichler, T. and Kim, J.: How Well Do Coupled Models Simulate Today's Climate?, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 89, 303–312, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-89-3-303, 2008.
Ribes, A., Qasmi, S., and Gillett, N. P.: Making climate projections conditional on historical observations, Sci. Adv., 7, eabc0671, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc0671, 2021.
Riboust, P., Thirel, G., Le Moine, N., and Ribstein, P.: Revisiting a simple degree-day model for integrating satellite data: Implementation of SWE-SCA hysteresis, J. Hydrol. Hydromech., 67, 70–81, https://doi.org/10.2478/johh-2018-0004, 2019.
Ross, A. C. and Najjar, R. G.: Evaluation of methods for selecting climate models to simulate future hydrological change, Climatic Change, 157, 407–428, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02512-8, 2019.
Sabokruhie, P., Akomeah, E., Rosner, T., and Lindenschmidt, K.-E.: Proof-of-concept of a quasi-2d water-quality modelling approach to simulate transverse mixing in rivers, Water, 13, 307, https://doi.org/10.3390/w13213071, 2021.
Sherwood, S. C., Webb, M. J., Annan, J. D., Armour, K. C., Forster, P. M., Hargreaves, J. C., Hegerl, G., Klein, S. A., Marvel, K. D., Rohling, E. J., Watanabe, M., Andrews, T., Braconnot, P., Bretherton, C. S., Foster, G. L., Hausfather, Z., von der Heydt, A. S., Knutti, R., Mauritsen, T., Norris, J. R., Proistosescu, C., Rugenstein, M., Schmidt, G. A., Tokarska, K. B., and Zelinka, M. D.: An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence, Rev. Geophys., 58, e2019RG000678, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000678, 2020.
Shiogama, H., Ishizaki, N. N., Hanasaki, N., Takahashi, K., Emori, S., Ito, R., Nakaegawa, T., Takayabu, I., Hijioka, Y., Takayabu, Y. N., and Shibuya, R.: Selecting CMIP6-Based Future Climate Scenarios for Impact and Adaptation Studies, SOLA, 17, 57–62, https://doi.org/10.2151/sola.2021-009, 2021.
Shiogama, H., Takakura, J., and Takahashi, K.: Uncertainty constraints on economic impact assessments of climate change simulated by an impact emulator, Environ. Res. Lett., 17, 124028, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aca68d, 2022a.
Shiogama, H., Watanabe, M., Kim, H., and Hirota, N.: Emergent constraints on future precipitation changes, Nature, 602, 612–616, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04310-8, 2022b.
Smith, C. J., Harris, G. R., Palmer, M. D., Bellouin, N., Collins, W., Myhre, G., Schulz, M., Golaz, J.-C., Ringer, M., Storelvmo, T., and Forster, P. M.: Energy Budget Constraints on the Time History of Aerosol Forcing and Climate Sensitivity, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2020JD033622, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033622, 2021.
Su, T., Chen, J., Cannon, A. J., Xie, P., and Guo, Q.: Multi-site bias correction of climate model outputs for hydro-meteorological impact studies: An application over a watershed in China, Hydrol. Process., 34, 2575–2598, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13750, 2020.
Tabari, H.: Climate change impact on flood and extreme precipitation increases with water availability, Sci. Rep., 10, 13768, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70816-2, 2020.
Tarek, M., Brissette, F. P., and Arsenault, R.: Evaluation of the ERA5 reanalysis as a potential reference dataset for hydrological modelling over North America, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 2527–2544, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-2527-2020, 2020.
Tokarska, K. B., Stolpe, M. B., Sippel, S., Fischer, E. M., Smith, C. J., Lehner, F., and Knutti, R.: Past warming trend constrains future warming in CMIP6 models, Sci. Adv., 6, eaaz9549, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz9549, 2020.
Troin, M., Martel, J. L., Arsenault, R., and Brissette, F.: Large-sample study of uncertainty of hydrological model components over North America, J. Hydrol., 609, 127766, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127766, 2022.
Trudel, M., Doucet-Généreux, P. L., and Leconte, R.: Assessing river low-flow uncertainties related to hydrological model calibration and structure under climate change conditions, Climate, 5, 19, https://doi.org/10.3390/cli5010019, 2017.
Valéry, A., Andréassian, V., and Perrin, C.: `As simple as possible but not simpler': What is useful in a temperature-based snow-accounting routine? Part 2 – Sensitivity analysis of the Cemaneige snow accounting routine on 380 catchments, J. Hydrol., 517, 1176–1187, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.04.058, 2014.
Wang, H.-M., Chen, J., Xu, C.-Y., Chen, H., Guo, S., Xie, P., and Li, X.: Does the weighting of climate simulations result in a better quantification of hydrological impacts?, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 4033–4050, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4033-2019, 2019.
Wilby, R. L. and Harris, I.: A framework for assessing uncertainties in climate change impacts: Low-flow scenarios for the River Thames, UK, Water Resour. Res., 42, W02419, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004065, 2006.
Zelinka, M. D., Myers, T. A., McCoy, D. T., Po-Chedley, S., Caldwell, P. M., Ceppi, P., Klein, S. A., and Taylor, K. E.: Causes of Higher Climate Sensitivity in CMIP6 Models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL085782, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085782, 2020.
Zhang, Y., Liu, H., Qi, J., Feng, P., Zhang, X., Liu, D. L., Marek, G. W., Srinivasan, R., and Chen, Y.: Assessing impacts of global climate change on water and food security in the black soil region of Northeast China using an improved SWAT-CO2 model, Sci. Total Environ., 857, 159482, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159482, 2023.
Short summary
Climate models are central to climate change impact studies. Some models project a future deemed too hot by many. We looked at how including hot models may skew the result of impact studies. Applied to hydrology, this study shows that hot models do not systematically produce hydrological outliers.
Climate models are central to climate change impact studies. Some models project a future deemed...
