Katie Smith

and 6 more

Earth and environmental models are relied upon to investigate system responses that cannot otherwise be examined. In simulating physical processes, models have adjustable parameters which may, or may not, have a physical meaning. Determining the values to assign to these model parameters is an enduring challenge for earth and environmental modellers. Selecting different error metrics by which the models results are compared to observations will lead to different sets of calibrated model parameters, and thus different model results. Furthermore, models may exhibit ‘equifinal’ behaviour, where multiple combinations of model parameters lead to equally acceptable model performance against observations. These decisions in model calibration introduce uncertainty that must be considered when model results are used to inform environmental decision-making. This presentation focusses on the uncertainties that derive from the calibration of a four parameter lumped catchment hydrological model (GR4J). The GR models contain an inbuilt automatic calibration algorithm that can satisfactorily calibrate against four error metrics in only a few seconds. However, a single, deterministic model result does not provide information on parameter uncertainty. Furthermore, a modeller interested in extreme events, such as droughts, may wish to calibrate against more low flows specific error metrics. In a comprehensive assessment, the GR4J model has been run with 500,000 Latin Hypercube Sampled parameter sets across 303 catchments in the United Kingdom. These parameter sets have been assessed against six error metrics, including two drought specific metrics. This presentation compares the two approaches, and demonstrates that the inbuilt automatic calibration can outperform the Latin Hypercube experiment approach in single metric assessed performance. However, it is also shown that there are many merits of the more comprehensive assessment, which allows for probabilistic model results, multi-objective optimisation, and better tailoring to calibrate the model for specific applications such as drought event characterisation. Modellers and decision-makers may be constrained in their choice of calibration method, so it is important that they recognise the strengths and limitations of their chosen approach.

Dhais Peña-Angulo

and 9 more

This study presents a new dataset of gauged streamflow (N=3,224) for Europe spanning the period 1962 to 2017. The Monthly Streamflow of Europe Dataset (MSED) is freely available at http://msed.csic.es/. Based on this dataset, changes in the characteristics of hydrological drought (i.e. frequency, duration, and severity) were assessed for different regions of Europe. Due to the density of the database, it is possible to delimit spatial patterns in hydrological droughts trend with the greatest detail available to date. Results reveal bidirectional changes in monthly streamflow, with negative changes predominating over central and southern Europe, while positive trends dominate over northern Europe. Temporally, two dominant patterns were noted. The first pattern corresponds to a consistent downward trend in all months, evident for southern Europe. A second pattern was noted over central and northern Europe and western France, with a predominant negative trend during warm months and a positive trend in cold months. For hydrological drought events, results suggest a positive trend toward more frequent and severe droughts in southern and central Europe and conversely a negative trend over northern Europe. This study emphasizes that hydrological droughts show complex spatial patterns across Europe over the past six decades, implying that hydrological drought behaviour in Europe has a regional character. Accordingly it is challenging to adopt “efficient” strategies and policies to monitor and mitigate drought impacts at the continental level.