the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Reduction of the uncertainty of flood hazard analyses under a future climate by integrating multiple SSP-RCP scenarios
Abstract. The uncertainty due to small number of ensemble members is a major source of uncertainty in future climate predictions. While the uncertainty due to the above in general circulation models (GCMs) projections can be mitigated by increasing the number of simulation ensembles, only a limited number of large-ensemble experiments are available in CMIP6 future scenario experiments. Here we propose a method that increases the sample ensemble size in evaluations of future hazard, by integrating multiple SSP-RCPs for a time period corresponding to a specific increase in temperature from the preindustrial level (i.e., X °C warming). The success of the method was assessed by investigating whether the uncertainty due to small number of ensemble members could be reasonably reduced. First, the similarity in the spatial distributions of flood hazard projection at the same warming level was determined for different SSP-RCP scenarios. Under a 2 °C warming, all SSP-RCPs had a similar distribution with respect to the change ratio of the flood magnitude. Additionally, we showed that the uncertainty due to the different SSP-RCPs (5 %–10 %) was smaller than the differences between different warming levels such as between 2 °C and 3 °C (around 20 %–30 %), which suggests that differences among SSP-RCPs as to future flood discharge change are relatively small. These results suggested that integrating SSP-RCPs to increase the ensemble size was a reasonable approach, reducing unbiased variance among GCMs in about 70 % of land grid points comparing to the result using SSP5-RCP8.5 alone.
Status: open (until 06 Oct 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1027', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Aug 2024
reply
The manuscript proposes a statistical method to reduce the uncertainty in flood hazard projections by integrating multiple SSP-RCP scenarios. The authors suggest that this approach can mitigate the limitations posed by a small number of ensemble members in future climate projections, particularly for flood discharge assessments. However, the novelty of the approach is overshadowed by methodological and conceptual issues:
1, The core methodology of integrating multiple SSP-RCP scenarios to increase ensemble size is not convincingly justified. The assumption that different SSP-RCP scenarios can be combined as if they were additional ensemble members is problematic due to the inherent differences between scenarios. SSP-RCPs represent fundamentally different socio-economic pathways and climate forcing trajectories, influencing climate variables in distinct ways. The manuscript does not provide a robust theoretical or empirical basis to support this integration method. Although past studies (referred in this paper) indicate that uncertainty can be reduced by increasing ensemble size, they achieve this by using a wide range of initial conditions and climate model physics, grounded in physical principles rather than statistical manipulation. The findings in this paper may be contingent upon the specific GCM product used.
2, While the manuscript aims to reduce uncertainty, it does not adequately address the propagation of uncertainties from various sources, and the uncertainty reduction is not clearly shown. Integrating different SSP-RCPs might introduce new uncertainties, and the manuscript lacks a comprehensive analysis of how these new uncertainties are quantified and managed.
3, The manuscript claims that the proposed method reduces unbiased variance in 70% of land grid points. However, the validation of these claims is insufficient. There is a lack of independent verification using observed data or alternative high-resolution models. Without robust validation, the reliability and applicability of the proposed method remain questionable. At the very least, historical or present climate states should be used for validation purposes, even if the main objective is uncertainty analysis. The large uncertainties in the complex climate-discharge system might make the results meaningless, highlighting the need for validation.
4, Several key explanations in the manuscript are unclear or insufficiently detailed. For instance, the process of determining the similarity of flood hazard projections among different SSP-RCP scenarios is not described in enough detail to be reproducible. Specific queries include: How are the model boundary conditions and initial conditions determined? Is there consideration of evapotranspiration and infiltration? How is the river conveyance capacity estimated? Is there any downscaling method needed to solve the scale mismatch between the coarse resolution climate simulation and the fine resolution hydraulics needed? How about the bias correction in these climate model simualtions?
5, A typo in line 159, there is an extra ).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1027-RC1
Viewed
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
171 | 0 | 0 | 171 | 0 | 0 |
- HTML: 171
- PDF: 0
- XML: 0
- Total: 171
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1