the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Modeling Climate Change Uncertainty and Its Impact on the Nemunas River Watershed and Curonian Lagoon Ecosystem
Abstract. This study advances the understanding of climate projection uncertainties in the Nemunas River, Curonian Lagoon, and southeastern Baltic Sea continuum by analyzing a subset of climate models, focusing on a coupled ocean and drainage basin model. Four downscaled and bias-corrected high-resolution regional atmospheric climate models were used to set up the hydrological (SWAT) and hydrodynamic (SHYFEM) modeling system. This study investigates the variability and trends in environmental parameters such as water fluxes, timing, nutrient load, water temperature, ice cover, and saltwater intrusions under Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios. The analysis highlights the variability among model results underscoring the inherent uncertainties in forecasting climatic impacts, hence highlighting the necessity of using multi-model ensembles to improve the accuracy of climate change impact assessments. Additionally, modeling results were used to evaluate the possible environmental impact due to climate change through the analysis of the cold water fish species reproduction season. We analyze the duration of cold periods (<1.5 °C) as a thermal window for burbot spawning, calculated assuming different climate forcing scenarios and models. The analysis indicated coherent shrinking of the cold period and presence of the changepoints during historical and different periods in the future, however, not all trends reach statistical significance, and due to high variability within the projections, they are less reliable. This means there is a considerable amount of uncertainty in these projections, highlighting the difficulty in making reliable climate change impact assessments.
- Preprint
(2551 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 30 May 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-890', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Apr 2024
reply
General Comment:
The authors have resumed their former work to provide further insights in the
study of Curionian Lagoon dynamics in a climate scenarios perspective.
They have leveraged the modelling setup of the previous study and have stated
the aims of their latest study in a clear manner inside a streamlined text.The concept of forcing an hydrodynamic model with accurate information, such as the
one coming from an hydrological model, constitutes a better practice with respect
to provide climatology derived river water inputs, the latter being deprecated if
not, as it might be in some cases, detrimental.Yet some technical aspects of the paper can be ameliorated in two points which
most drew my attention:1) the modelling setup is poorly described in detail. The authors refer to their former
paper for the model description, that is not sufficient in that case either in my opinion.2) the calculation of water fluxes is lacking of some details that deserve to be reported.
Please see the comments below for detailed suggestions and offers of reflection.
-----------------
lines 38:39"Apart from the atmospheric models, there is also a variety of ocean models
that have to be considered (Madec et al.,2016, Mellor G. L., 2004, Umgiesser et al. 2004)."This sentence does not look really coherent (a variety is mentioned but 3 models only are referenced).
The authors should re-formulate the sentence and justify the reference to these 3 specific
circulation models.
---------------
lines 72:74The sentence doesn't really look like well-constructed. I suggest something like:
"The lagoon covers an area of 1584 km2, with its widest section stretching up to
46 km in the southern part. Conversely, in the northernmost part (Klaipėda Strait), it
narrows down to approximately 400 m wide."
---------------
lines 116:118The text can be enriched with more details about the shyfem configuration, such as
the horizontal resolution, the type of boundary conditions (lateral/surface).
Considering the climate context, what kind of interpolation of atmospheric field has been applied
to force SHYFEM? What kind of bulk formulation has been applied?---------------
line 186Can the authors add more details about the methodology to compute the water fluxes across the section?
To this end the authors should address these 2 points:
1) In their previous study (Idzelyte,2023) the authors have split the flow exchange computations
in "inflow" and "outflow" in order to assess the variation in percentage in the various scenarios/seasons.
Considering that in this study the authors address only fluxes timeseries, does this inflow/outflow distinction applies yet?
How is the 10-year moving average computed in this case? When computing outflow in a 10-year window, all the inflow
values that fall in the window are set to 0? The author should provide some details about the methodology of
computing the time-aveaged fluxes.2) The authors should provide further insights on the computation of water fluxes across the section. In particular
they should report their method of assessing the velocity on the straight line represented by the 4 cross sections.
For what I can notice from the authors' former publication of 2023, the SHYFEM mesh is not regular in the Curonian lagoon
, where the triangles have different size on the coast and in the center. This makes the computation of fluxes
in a conservative way quite tricky.
The correct way to compute water fluxes on a mesh like SHYFEM's, and considering also the location of SHYFEM's velocities, is along
a spline that connects the triangle centers to the mid-edge points. Computing fluxes accurately across straight segments like
the 4 proposed by the authors is possible but upon the application of a conservative method of interpolation on the velocity field.Have the authors considered this issue and its possible effect on the uncertainty assessment?
---------------
Caption of Fig.3
"Note the adjusted y-axis ranges"
------------------
Section 3.1.6As I understand the authors have used an ice model to force the simulations but I
cannot find any reference (I suppose is Tedesco et al. 2009, please add it) nor how it's been
nested in the modeling framework. It is not clear whether ESIM2 has forced SHYFEM or it
has been used as standalone. I think that the modelling framework description
paragraph should be more exhaustive.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-890-RC1
Data sets
The computation results of coupled hydrological and hydrodynamic modelling application for the Nemunas River watershed – Curonian Lagoon – South-Eastern Baltic Sea continuum R. Idzelytė et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7500744
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
109 | 22 | 9 | 140 | 6 | 7 |
- HTML: 109
- PDF: 22
- XML: 9
- Total: 140
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1