Parameter sensitivity and predictive uncertainty in a new water quality model, Q(2)

A new dynamic model of water quality, Q(2), has recently been developed, capable of simulating large branched river systems. This paper describes the application of a generalized sensitivity analysis (GSA) to Q(2) for single reaches of the River Thames in southern England. Focusing on the simulation of dissolved oxygen (DO) (since this may be regarded as a proxy for the overall health of a river); the GSA is used to identify key parameters controlling model behavior and provide a probabilistic procedure for model calibration. It is shown that, in the River Thames at least, it is more important to obtain high quality forcing functions than to obtain improved parameter estimates once approximate values have been estimated. Furthermore, there is a need to ensure reasonable simulation of a range of water quality determinands, since a focus only on DO increases predictive uncertainty in the DO simulations. The Q(2) model has been applied here to the River Thames, but it has a broad utility for evaluating other systems in Europe and around the world.

Assessing the uncertainty associated with intermittent rainfall fields

[1] In many practical situations where spatial rainfall estimates are needed, rainfall occurs as a spatially intermittent phenomenon. An efficient geostatistical method for rainfall estimation in the case of intermittency has previously been published and comprises the estimation of two independent components: a binary random function for modeling the intermittency and a continuous random function that models the rainfall inside the rainy areas. The final rainfall estimates are obtained as the product of the estimates of these two random functions. However the published approach does not contain a method for estimation of uncertainties. The contribution of this paper is the presentation of the indicator maximum likelihood estimator from which the local conditional distribution of the rainfall value at any location may be derived using an ensemble approach. From the conditional distribution, representations of uncertainty such as the estimation variance and confidence intervals can be obtained. An approximation to the variance can be calculated more simply by assuming rainfall intensity is independent of location within the rainy area. The methodology has been validated using simulated and real rainfall data sets. The results of these case studies show good agreement between predicted uncertainties and measured errors obtained from the validation data.

Direct soil moisture controls of future global soil carbon changes: An important source of uncertainty

The nature of the climate–carbon cycle feedback depends critically on the response of soil carbon to climate, including changes in moisture. However, soil moisture–carbon feedback responses have not been investigated thoroughly. Uncertainty in the response of soil carbon to soil moisture changes could arise from uncertainty in the relationship between soil moisture and heterotrophic respiration. We used twelve soil moisture–respiration functions (SMRFs) with a soil carbon model (RothC) and data from a coupled climate–carbon cycle general circulation model to investigate the impact of direct heterotrophic respiration dependence on soil moisture on the climate carbon cycle feedback. Global changes in soil moisture acted to oppose temperature‐driven decreases in soil carbon and hence tended to increase soil carbon storage. We found considerable uncertainty in soil carbon changes due to the response of soil respiration to soil moisture. The use of different SMRFs resulted in both large losses and small gains in future global soil carbon stocks, whether considering all climate forcings or only moisture changes. Regionally, the greatest range in soil carbon changes across SMRFs was found where the largest soil carbon changes occurred. Further research is needed to constrain the soil moisture–respiration relationship and thus reduce uncertainty in climate–carbon cycle feedbacks. There may also be considerable uncertainty in the regional responses of soil carbon to soil moisture changes since climate model predictions of regional soil moisture changes are less coherent than temperature changes.

Global-scale climate impact functions: the relationship between climate forcing and impact

Although there is a strong policy interest in the impacts of climate change corresponding to different degrees of climate change, there is so far little consistent empirical evidence of the relationship between climate forcing and impact. This is because the vast majority of impact assessments use emissions-based scenarios with associated socio-economic assumptions, and it is not feasible to infer impacts at other temperature changes by interpolation. This paper presents an assessment of the global-scale impacts of climate change in 2050 corresponding to defined increases in global mean temperature, using spatially-explicit impacts models representing impacts in the water resources, river flooding, coastal, agriculture, ecosystem and built environment sectors. Pattern-scaling is used to construct climate scenarios associated with specific changes in global mean surface temperature, and a relationship between temperature and sea level used to construct sea level rise scenarios. Climate scenarios are constructed from 21 climate models to give an indication of the uncertainty between forcing and response. The analysis shows that there is considerable uncertainty in the impacts associated with a given increase in global mean temperature, due largely to uncertainty in the projected regional change in precipitation. This has important policy implications. There is evidence for some sectors of a non-linear relationship between global mean temperature change and impact, due to the changing relative importance of temperature and precipitation change. In the socio-economic sectors considered here, the relationships are reasonably consistent between socio-economic scenarios if impacts are expressed in proportional terms, but there can be large differences in absolute terms. There are a number of caveats with the approach, including the use of pattern-scaling to construct scenarios, the use of one impacts model per sector, and the sensitivity of the shape of the relationships between forcing and response to the definition of the impact indicator.

Moderate stake variations for risk and uncertainty, gains and losses: methodological implications for comparative studies

Risk attitudes are known to be sensitive to large stake variations. However, little is known on the sensitivity to moderate variations in stakes. This is important for studies that want to compare risk attitudes between countries or over time. I find that variations of ±20% affect only utility, while larger variations may affect also probability weighting. Surprisingly, the effect on weighting functions is larger for losses than for gains. It is also more pronounced for risk than for uncertainty.