the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Towards a semi-asynchronous method for hydrological modeling in climate change studies
Abstract. This study assesses the performance of the asynchronous approach used in hydrological modeling, which stands apart from the conventional approach by calibrating streamflow distributions without relying on meteorological observations. The focus is on comparing the two methods within the context of climate change impact studies, particularly in their ability to simulate key hydroclimatic processes across catchments. The analysis, conducted across multiple catchments, including a detailed case study of the Matane catchment in Southern Quebec, explores the potential of the asynchronous method as a viable alternative for future hydrological modeling. By eliminating the dependency on meteorological observations, the asynchronous approach offers potential advantages in regions with limited or unreliable observational data, providing a more flexible tool for climate change impact assessments.
The results reveal that while the asynchronous method effectively captures the overall distribution of streamflow and preserves extreme values, it faces significant challenges in accurately representing the timing of hydrological events, particularly those related to snowmelt. This issue stems, in part, from the method’s decision to work directly with the biases present in raw climate model outputs, without adjusting for the timing discrepancies in meteorological inputs. Consequently, the asynchronous approach inherits these biases, leading to timing inconsistencies and increased variability across different climate models, which raises concerns about the method's ability to reliably simulate critical hydroclimatic variables under future climate scenarios. In contrast, the conventional method, which incorporates bias correction, demonstrates greater reliability in capturing the timing and magnitude of streamflow events, making it a more robust tool for most hydrological applications.
The study also highlights the concept of equifinality, where different methods achieve similar outcomes through potentially flawed mechanisms, particularly in the case of the asynchronous method. Despite projecting changes in hydroclimatic variables similar to those of the conventional method, the asynchronous approach may do so for reasons that are not hydrologically sound, particularly in snow-dominated catchments.
While the asynchronous method shows promise in preserving streamflow extremes, its current implementation requires further refinement to improve its accuracy and reliability, particularly in how it simulates the timing of seasonal dynamics. However, as climate model simulations continue to improve and their biases are progressively reduced, the asynchronous approach is poised to benefit significantly, enhancing its potential for more accurate and reliable future hydrological projections. The conventional method remains the preferred choice for applications requiring hydrological simulations, but future research should focus on developing semi-asynchronous approaches that combine the asynchronous method’s strength in preserving extremes with the conventional method’s ability to handle event-specific timing.
- Preprint
(4804 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3037', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Dec 2024
The manuscript of Talbot et al. provides a comparison of two approaches for projecting climate change impacts on the terrestrial hydrological cycle at the catchment level, namely the conventional and the asynchronous approaches. The two approaches are accurately applied over 10 small-to-medium extent catchments in southern Quebec, which are particularly affected by snow dynamics (accumulation and melting). Basically, the difference between the two approaches consists of correcting the biases of the historical climate simulations either directly (i.e., applying a bias correction method) or through a specific calibration of the parameters of the hydrological model (i.e., the calibrated parameters "incorporate" the climatological bias). This second approach is risky since, as correctly discussed by the authors, it can easily lead to flawed mechanisms. And, to be honest, it doesn't convince me much, primarily for this drawback but also because it requires a more considerable computational effort. Nevertheless, I agree that it should be thoroughly tested and verified.
Though the paper is potentially engaging and thought-provoking, I have several comments that should be addressed before publication.
First, as many studies before demonstrated, most of the reliability of the climate projection depends on GCMs, which are the primary sources of uncertainty (e.g., 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.11.062, 10.1007/s00382-019-04664-w, 10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101120, 10.1002/joc.8661 and several others). In some cases, bias correction is mandatory to achieve meaningful hydrological output; in other cases, in which the historical simulations perform better, one can even think of avoiding any bias correction. So, the first point is showing a preliminary analysis of the performance of the GCMs, some of which could even be deleted if performing too badly (e.g., in my experience, some of them are neither able to reproduce precipitation seasonality correctly). A list of the GCMs used is missing. This analysis was probably already done by Talbot et al. (2024b). Still, it should also be shown in this paper, mainly because Talbot et al. (2024b), and even Talbot et al. (2024a), are still under review, and leaving some essential details in other papers still under review is not advisable (in other words, please take care that all the essential details for this study are within the manuscript, and not delegated to other articles that, in principle, might not even be published).
Furthermore, GCM resolution could be very rough for the small catchments subject of the study, especially considering the hydrological model resolution (1000 meters according to L162). What is the GCM resolution? How did the authors deal with the different resolutions of the GCMs and the hydrological model? The same comment about spatial resolutions holds for the ERA5 dataset, which is preferred to ERA5-Land.
The last major concern regards the different objective functions used for the calibration of the models in the two approaches. I guess that the RMSE-based calibration supports the high flow calibration better (the same authors at LL614-617 somehow admit this). Nevertheless, the problem of preserving peak flows could be solved with the conventional approach using other bias correction methods instead of (or in addition to) that chosen (e.g., a simple change factor method). In my opinion, the choice of the bias correction method and the objective functions limits the generalizability of the results achieved, and this should be at least discussed in more detail.
Finally, please find below some other minor comments that should be addressed. I hope my review helps improve the quality of the paper.
Title: I don't see that the paper moves towards a semi-asynchronous method. It looks more like a speculation in the discussion. Therefore, I suggest changing the title to something like "Comparison between conventional and asynchronous methods for…"
Abstract: it is unclear because the explanation of the asynchronous method is too concise and not exhaustive
L59: "to reduce potential biases in the observed data" Do the authors mean "to reduce potential biases with respect to the observed data"?
LL63-64: as stated before, indeed, GCMs are the primary source of uncertainty. However, concerning BC's impact on hydrological variables, please consider 10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101120 and references within and, more recently, 10.1016/j.ejrh.2024.101973
L80: The explanation of the asynchronous method is not yet clear. What are the proxies?
Table 1: please explain what it means that the annual rainfall is derived from a hydrological model
LL100-103: since two climate classes are named, it makes sense to see where they are on a map
L118: please explain why the ERA5-Land dataset was not considered for this study
L236: here it is 1984-2011, but before (L226) it was 1984-2009
L253: If I understand correctly, each catchment and climate model (therefore, 180 combinations) has its own parameter set, with its values for the parameters listed in Table 2. Please explain what the 1000 trials are
LL308-309: this outcome is not clear from Fig. 2
Fig.4 is adequate to support text in LL344-356. However, an additional table with some further statistics could help to make the analysis less qualitative (e.g., the sentence "When comparing the observed streamflow to the reference period simulations, the asynchronous method shows a closer alignment with the observed distribution": how much closer?)
L420: Indeed, the ETa peak is shifted forward (and is higher) with the conventional method, which could be significant for agricultural water resources management (e.g., irrigation).
L568: please consider that the results achieved could not be generalized but are specific for the considered catchment, including local climatology
The conclusions are a bit repetitive and don't add too much. They look more like a summary. Maybe discussion and conclusions could be merged.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3037-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Frédéric Talbot, 04 Feb 2025
Dear Reviewer 1,
We greatly appreciate your thoughtful feedback and constructive suggestions on our manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable in refining our work.
Please find attached our detailed responses to each of your comments.
Thank you again for your time and careful review.
Best regards,
Frédéric Talbot, on behalf of all authors
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Frédéric Talbot, 04 Feb 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3037', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Jan 2025
Publisher’s note: the supplement to this comment was edited on 13 January 2025. The adjustments were minor without effect on the scientific meaning.
Dear Editor,
The manuscript was well taken care -off and is tidy. However, I think the justification of the used metric for calibrating the hydrological model and not investigating its effect on the outcome i see as major shortcomings of this manuscript.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Frédéric Talbot, 04 Feb 2025
Dear Reviewer 2,
Many thanks for the thoughtful comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript. Your feedback will certainly help improve the clarity and impact of our research.
Attached, you will find our responses to each of your comments.
Thank you once again for your review.
Sincerely,
Frédéric Talbot, on behalf of all authors
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Frédéric Talbot, 04 Feb 2025
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3037', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Dec 2024
The manuscript of Talbot et al. provides a comparison of two approaches for projecting climate change impacts on the terrestrial hydrological cycle at the catchment level, namely the conventional and the asynchronous approaches. The two approaches are accurately applied over 10 small-to-medium extent catchments in southern Quebec, which are particularly affected by snow dynamics (accumulation and melting). Basically, the difference between the two approaches consists of correcting the biases of the historical climate simulations either directly (i.e., applying a bias correction method) or through a specific calibration of the parameters of the hydrological model (i.e., the calibrated parameters "incorporate" the climatological bias). This second approach is risky since, as correctly discussed by the authors, it can easily lead to flawed mechanisms. And, to be honest, it doesn't convince me much, primarily for this drawback but also because it requires a more considerable computational effort. Nevertheless, I agree that it should be thoroughly tested and verified.
Though the paper is potentially engaging and thought-provoking, I have several comments that should be addressed before publication.
First, as many studies before demonstrated, most of the reliability of the climate projection depends on GCMs, which are the primary sources of uncertainty (e.g., 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.11.062, 10.1007/s00382-019-04664-w, 10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101120, 10.1002/joc.8661 and several others). In some cases, bias correction is mandatory to achieve meaningful hydrological output; in other cases, in which the historical simulations perform better, one can even think of avoiding any bias correction. So, the first point is showing a preliminary analysis of the performance of the GCMs, some of which could even be deleted if performing too badly (e.g., in my experience, some of them are neither able to reproduce precipitation seasonality correctly). A list of the GCMs used is missing. This analysis was probably already done by Talbot et al. (2024b). Still, it should also be shown in this paper, mainly because Talbot et al. (2024b), and even Talbot et al. (2024a), are still under review, and leaving some essential details in other papers still under review is not advisable (in other words, please take care that all the essential details for this study are within the manuscript, and not delegated to other articles that, in principle, might not even be published).
Furthermore, GCM resolution could be very rough for the small catchments subject of the study, especially considering the hydrological model resolution (1000 meters according to L162). What is the GCM resolution? How did the authors deal with the different resolutions of the GCMs and the hydrological model? The same comment about spatial resolutions holds for the ERA5 dataset, which is preferred to ERA5-Land.
The last major concern regards the different objective functions used for the calibration of the models in the two approaches. I guess that the RMSE-based calibration supports the high flow calibration better (the same authors at LL614-617 somehow admit this). Nevertheless, the problem of preserving peak flows could be solved with the conventional approach using other bias correction methods instead of (or in addition to) that chosen (e.g., a simple change factor method). In my opinion, the choice of the bias correction method and the objective functions limits the generalizability of the results achieved, and this should be at least discussed in more detail.
Finally, please find below some other minor comments that should be addressed. I hope my review helps improve the quality of the paper.
Title: I don't see that the paper moves towards a semi-asynchronous method. It looks more like a speculation in the discussion. Therefore, I suggest changing the title to something like "Comparison between conventional and asynchronous methods for…"
Abstract: it is unclear because the explanation of the asynchronous method is too concise and not exhaustive
L59: "to reduce potential biases in the observed data" Do the authors mean "to reduce potential biases with respect to the observed data"?
LL63-64: as stated before, indeed, GCMs are the primary source of uncertainty. However, concerning BC's impact on hydrological variables, please consider 10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101120 and references within and, more recently, 10.1016/j.ejrh.2024.101973
L80: The explanation of the asynchronous method is not yet clear. What are the proxies?
Table 1: please explain what it means that the annual rainfall is derived from a hydrological model
LL100-103: since two climate classes are named, it makes sense to see where they are on a map
L118: please explain why the ERA5-Land dataset was not considered for this study
L236: here it is 1984-2011, but before (L226) it was 1984-2009
L253: If I understand correctly, each catchment and climate model (therefore, 180 combinations) has its own parameter set, with its values for the parameters listed in Table 2. Please explain what the 1000 trials are
LL308-309: this outcome is not clear from Fig. 2
Fig.4 is adequate to support text in LL344-356. However, an additional table with some further statistics could help to make the analysis less qualitative (e.g., the sentence "When comparing the observed streamflow to the reference period simulations, the asynchronous method shows a closer alignment with the observed distribution": how much closer?)
L420: Indeed, the ETa peak is shifted forward (and is higher) with the conventional method, which could be significant for agricultural water resources management (e.g., irrigation).
L568: please consider that the results achieved could not be generalized but are specific for the considered catchment, including local climatology
The conclusions are a bit repetitive and don't add too much. They look more like a summary. Maybe discussion and conclusions could be merged.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3037-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Frédéric Talbot, 04 Feb 2025
Dear Reviewer 1,
We greatly appreciate your thoughtful feedback and constructive suggestions on our manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable in refining our work.
Please find attached our detailed responses to each of your comments.
Thank you again for your time and careful review.
Best regards,
Frédéric Talbot, on behalf of all authors
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Frédéric Talbot, 04 Feb 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3037', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Jan 2025
Publisher’s note: the supplement to this comment was edited on 13 January 2025. The adjustments were minor without effect on the scientific meaning.
Dear Editor,
The manuscript was well taken care -off and is tidy. However, I think the justification of the used metric for calibrating the hydrological model and not investigating its effect on the outcome i see as major shortcomings of this manuscript.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Frédéric Talbot, 04 Feb 2025
Dear Reviewer 2,
Many thanks for the thoughtful comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript. Your feedback will certainly help improve the clarity and impact of our research.
Attached, you will find our responses to each of your comments.
Thank you once again for your review.
Sincerely,
Frédéric Talbot, on behalf of all authors
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Frédéric Talbot, 04 Feb 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
203 | 47 | 105 | 355 | 17 | 10 |
- HTML: 203
- PDF: 47
- XML: 105
- Total: 355
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 103 | 29 |
Canada | 2 | 45 | 12 |
Netherlands | 3 | 20 | 5 |
Bangladesh | 4 | 12 | 3 |
Romania | 5 | 12 | 3 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 103