the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 05 Sep 2024
Storyline Analytical Framework for Understanding Future Severe Low-Water Episodes and Their Consequences
Abstract. The 2021 drought highlighted the vulnerability of Quebec's water resources and the potential for widespread consequences in a region that is generally perceived as having abundant water. This study uses a storyline approach to explore the plausible impacts of future drought conditions for an event similar to what occurred in 2021, but under two different warming scenarios corresponding to increases of 2 °C and 3 °C in global surface temperatures compared to preindustrial levels. The approach employs analogues derived from a large ensemble of regional climate simulations combined with simulations generated by a hydrological model to offer a comprehensive understanding of both climate and hydrological conditions during, and leading up to, these potential future events. This approach allowed for enhanced collaboration with water management experts and other stakeholders to project the possible impacts of climate change on serious water deficits in Quebec. Results indicate a further deterioration in river conditions, particularly under a +3 °C global temperature rise. In the hardest-hit areas of the province under that scenario, future low-water levels persist for a month longer and river streamflows drop by an additional 50 %, thus falling short of the threshold required to maintain the health of ecosystems for an extended period of time and suggesting significant impacts on ecosystems and human activities. This study also highlights the need for improved systematic data collection during meteorological and hydrological droughts in Quebec, particularly with respect to their impacts on human activities and ecosystems.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(13409 KB)
-
Supplement
(27417 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(13409 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(27417 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2595', Andreja Jonoski, 04 Oct 2024
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gabriel Rondeau-Genesse, 10 Jan 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2595', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Nov 2024
Please see attachment for review comments.
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gabriel Rondeau-Genesse, 10 Jan 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2595', Maurits Ertsen, 08 Dec 2024
The topic of the text is interesting and worth sharing. I can also imagine that, given that drought is indeed somewhat more difficult to pinpoint as an event, storyline-type of thinking may be appropriate. Having said that, I do think that this text is not ready for publication yet. My reasons to suggest this assessment are a few.
- The appropriateness of the approach is claimed, but hardly explained and/or compared with other approaches. Why can the extensive modelling approach add to the baseline method? Why would it be needed (or even allowed) to keep the storyline approach when running such models? The discussion might have revealed some of these issues, but paragraph 4 does not really engage with the climate stories/narratives as such.
- The text actually reads much like a rather traditional text on climate scenarios. It might be that the use of the model enforces this, but I found it a little tricky to find the added value of storylines - or even the difference with other ways of sharing scenarios. I would think that the text could be much the same without ever mentioning the term "storyline analysis".
- The method section seems to be incomplete. First, the method of storyline analytics is not discussed. How does one do it? Second, in the results section there seem to be several series of steps included that might need to be included in the method section.
- The usefulness of the approach is defended by claiming that the results can be used in discussions with stakeholders, with some details on stakeholders ideas in section 4 (which for some reason is presented as discussion and not as results). Any evidence for that claim is not offered, as the stakeholder data come from a survey that was done before the storyline process. As such, we read two different parts: one on climate scenarios and one on survey results. I could also imagine that in a dialogue with stakeholders, modelling scenarios, whether they are shared in storyline format or otherwise, might change the stories themselves. This can only be checked after engaging with the stakeholders. I would be very interested in that aspect.
In conclusion, I would think that this text is a little unbalanced in terms of explaining the usefulness of the method, in terms of added value of the modelling, and in terms of the rather different section 3 and 4. Section 4 does seem to miss the point on discussing results from Section 3 anyway. The storyline itself reads like a standard climate scenario explanation, which is useful, but necessarily new enough to be published.
I attach a pdf with some handwritten comments. I am mainly concerned that throughout the paper the meaning, approach and added value of storyline analysis remains quite obscure.
-
RC4: 'Reply on RC3', Maurits Ertsen, 08 Dec 2024
Please read the sentence "The storyline itself reads like a standard climate scenario explanation, which is useful, but necessarily new enough to be published. " as "The storyline itself reads like a standard climate scenario explanation, which is useful, but NOT necessarily new enough to be published." Apologies for the confusion... Maurits
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2595-RC4 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gabriel Rondeau-Genesse, 10 Jan 2025
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gabriel Rondeau-Genesse, 10 Jan 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2595', Andreja Jonoski, 04 Oct 2024
Please see the attached file with review comments.
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gabriel Rondeau-Genesse, 10 Jan 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2595', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Nov 2024
Please see attachment for review comments.
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gabriel Rondeau-Genesse, 10 Jan 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2595', Maurits Ertsen, 08 Dec 2024
The topic of the text is interesting and worth sharing. I can also imagine that, given that drought is indeed somewhat more difficult to pinpoint as an event, storyline-type of thinking may be appropriate. Having said that, I do think that this text is not ready for publication yet. My reasons to suggest this assessment are a few.
- The appropriateness of the approach is claimed, but hardly explained and/or compared with other approaches. Why can the extensive modelling approach add to the baseline method? Why would it be needed (or even allowed) to keep the storyline approach when running such models? The discussion might have revealed some of these issues, but paragraph 4 does not really engage with the climate stories/narratives as such.
- The text actually reads much like a rather traditional text on climate scenarios. It might be that the use of the model enforces this, but I found it a little tricky to find the added value of storylines - or even the difference with other ways of sharing scenarios. I would think that the text could be much the same without ever mentioning the term "storyline analysis".
- The method section seems to be incomplete. First, the method of storyline analytics is not discussed. How does one do it? Second, in the results section there seem to be several series of steps included that might need to be included in the method section.
- The usefulness of the approach is defended by claiming that the results can be used in discussions with stakeholders, with some details on stakeholders ideas in section 4 (which for some reason is presented as discussion and not as results). Any evidence for that claim is not offered, as the stakeholder data come from a survey that was done before the storyline process. As such, we read two different parts: one on climate scenarios and one on survey results. I could also imagine that in a dialogue with stakeholders, modelling scenarios, whether they are shared in storyline format or otherwise, might change the stories themselves. This can only be checked after engaging with the stakeholders. I would be very interested in that aspect.
In conclusion, I would think that this text is a little unbalanced in terms of explaining the usefulness of the method, in terms of added value of the modelling, and in terms of the rather different section 3 and 4. Section 4 does seem to miss the point on discussing results from Section 3 anyway. The storyline itself reads like a standard climate scenario explanation, which is useful, but necessarily new enough to be published.
I attach a pdf with some handwritten comments. I am mainly concerned that throughout the paper the meaning, approach and added value of storyline analysis remains quite obscure.
-
RC4: 'Reply on RC3', Maurits Ertsen, 08 Dec 2024
Please read the sentence "The storyline itself reads like a standard climate scenario explanation, which is useful, but necessarily new enough to be published. " as "The storyline itself reads like a standard climate scenario explanation, which is useful, but NOT necessarily new enough to be published." Apologies for the confusion... Maurits
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2595-RC4 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gabriel Rondeau-Genesse, 10 Jan 2025
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gabriel Rondeau-Genesse, 10 Jan 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 897 | 157 | 197 | 1,251 | 134 | 48 | 59 |
- HTML: 897
- PDF: 157
- XML: 197
- Total: 1,251
- Supplement: 134
- BibTeX: 48
- EndNote: 59
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Gabriel Rondeau-Genesse
Louis-Philippe Caron
Kristelle Audet
Laurent Da Silva
Daniel Tarte
Rachel Parent
Élise Comeau
Dominic Matte
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(13409 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(27417 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Please see the attached file with review comments.