Abstract
Abstract. The increasing air temperature in a changing climate will impact actual evaporation and have consequences for water resource management in energy-limited regions. In many hydrological models, evaporation is assessed using a preliminary computation of potential evaporation (PE), which represents the evaporative demand of the atmosphere. Therefore, in impact studies, the quantification of uncertainties related to PE estimation, which can arise from different sources, is crucial. Indeed, a myriad of PE formulations exist, and the uncertainties related to climate variables cascade into PE computation. To date, no consensus has emerged on the main source of uncertainty in the PE modeling chain for hydrological studies. In this study, we address this issue by setting up a multi-model and multi-scenario approach. We used seven different PE formulations and a set of 30 climate projections to calculate changes in PE. To estimate the uncertainties related to each step of the PE calculation process, namely Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios, general circulation models (GCMs), regional climate models (RCMs) and PE formulations, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) decomposition was used. Results show that mean annual PE will increase across France by the end of the century (from +40 to +130 mm y−1). In ascending order, uncertainty contributions by the end of the century are explained by PE formulations (below 10 %), RCPs (above 20 %), RCMs (30 %–40 %) and GCMs (30 %–40 %). However, under a single scenario, the contribution of the PE formulation is much higher and can reach up to 50 % of the total variance. All PE formulations show similar future trends, as climatic variables are co-dependent with respect to temperature. While no PE formulation stands out from the others, the Penman–Monteith formulation may be preferred in hydrological impact studies, as it is representative of the PE formulations' ensemble mean and allows one to account for the coevolution of climate and environmental drivers.
Funder
Agence de l’Eau Rhin-Meuse
Sorbonne Université
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Engineering,General Environmental Science
Reference52 articles.
1. Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M.: FAO Irrigation and
drainage paper, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 56, 1998. a, b, c, d
2. Almorox, J., Quej, V. H., and Martí, P.: Global performance ranking of
temperature-based approaches for evapotranspiration estimation considering
Köppen climate classes, J. Hydrol., 528, 514–522,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.06.057, 2015. a
3. Bae, D.-H., Jung, I.-W., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Hydrologic uncertainties in
climate change from IPCC AR4 GCM simulations of the Chungju Basin, Korea,
J. Hydrol., 401, 90–105,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.02.012, 2011. a
4. Boé, J. and Terray, L.: Uncertainties in summer evapotranspiration changes
over Europe and implications for regional climate change,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L05702, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032417, 2008. a
5. Dallaire, G., Poulin, A., Arsenault, R., and Brissette, F.: Uncertainty of
potential evapotranspiration modelling in climate change impact studies on
low flows in North America, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 66, 689–702,
https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2021.1888955, 2021. a
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献