Ensemble flood predictions for River Thames under climate change

Special Topic: Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation

Open Access

Issue		Natl Sci Open Volume 3, Number 1, 2024 Special Topic: Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation


Article Number		20230027
Number of page(s)		21
Section		Earth and Environmental Sciences
DOI		https://doi.org/10.1360/nso/20230027
Published online		11 January 2024

Dottori F, Szewczyk W, Ciscar JC, et al. Increased human and economic losses from river flooding with anthropogenic warming. Nat Clim Change 2018; 8: 781-786. [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Götzinger J, Bárdossy A. Generic error model for calibration and uncertainty estimation of hydrological models. Water Resour Res 2008; 44: W00B07. [Article] [Google Scholar]
Renard B, Kavetski D, Leblois E, et al. Toward a reliable decomposition of predictive uncertainty in hydrological modeling: Characterizing rainfall errors using conditional simulation. Water Resour Res 2011; 47: W11516. [Article] [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
Fan YR, Yu L, Shi X, et al. Tracing uncertainty contributors in the multi-hazard risk analysis for compound extremes. Earths Future 2021; 9: e2021EF002280. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Hirabayashi Y, Mahendran R, Koirala S, et al. Global flood risk under climate change. Nat Clim Change 2013; 3: 816-821. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Lavery S, Donovan B. Flood risk management in the Thames Estuary looking ahead 100 years. Phil Trans R Soc A 2005; 363: 1455-1474. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Sanders R,Tabuchi S. Decision support system for flood risk analysis for the River Thames, United Kingdom. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 2000; 66:1185-1193. [Google Scholar]
Miller JD, Hutchins M. The impacts of urbanisation and climate change on urban flooding and urban water quality: A review of the evidence concerning the United Kingdom. J Hydrol-Regional Studies 2017; 12: 345-362. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Collet L, Harrigan S, Prudhomme C, et al. Future hot-spots for hydro-hazards in Great Britain: A probabilistic assessment. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 2018; 22: 5387-5401. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Visser-Quinn A, Beevers L, Collet L, et al. Spatio-temporal analysis of compound hydro-hazard extremes across the UK. Adv Water Resour 2019; 130: 77-90. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Kay AL, Rudd AC, Fry M, et al. Climate change impacts on peak river flows: Combining national-scale hydrological modelling and probabilistic projections. Clim Risk Manage 2021; 31: 100263. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Duan Q, Sorooshian S, Gupta VK. Optimal use of the SCE-UA global optimization method for calibrating watershed models. J Hydrol 1994; 158: 265-284. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Gupta HV, Kling H, Yilmaz KK, et al. Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling. J Hydrol 2009; 377: 80-91. [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Gabriel RK, Fan Y. Multivariate hydrologic risk analysis for river thames. Water 2022; 14: 384. [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Bussi G, Dadson SJ, Prudhomme C, et al. Modelling the future impacts of climate and land-use change on suspended sediment transport in the River Thames (UK). J Hydrol 2016; 542: 357-372. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Lu Q, Futter MN, Nizzetto L, et al. Fate and transport of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the River Thames catchment – Insights from a coupled multimedia fate and hydrobiogeochemical transport model. Sci Total Environ 2016; 572: 1461-1470. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bell VA, Kay AL, Cole SJ, et al. How might climate change affect river flows across the Thames Basin? An area-wide analysis using the UKCP09 Regional Climate Model ensemble. J Hydrol 2012; 442-443: 89-104. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Stevens AJ, Clarke D, Nicholls RJ. Trends in reported flooding in the UK: 1884–2013. Hydrol Sci J 2016; 61: 50-63. [Article] [Google Scholar]
Tanguy M, Prudhomme C, Smith K, et al. Historic gridded potential evapotranspiration (PET) based on temperature-based equation McGuinness-Bordne calibrated for the UK (1891–2015). NERC Environmental Information Data Centre, 2017. [Article]. [Google Scholar]
Thrasher B, Wang W, Michaelis A, et al. NASA global daily downscaled projections, CMIP6. Sci Data 2022; 9: 262. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Ziehn T, Chamberlain MA, Law RM, et al. The Australian Earth System Model: ACCESS-ESM1.5. J South Hemisph Earth Syst Sci 2020; 70: 193-214. [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Wu T, Yu R, Lu Y, et al. BCC-CSM2-HR: A high-resolution version of the Beijing Climate Center Climate System Model. Geosci Model Dev 2021; 14: 2977-3006. [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Droogers P, Allen RG. Estimating reference evapotranspiration under inaccurate data conditions. Irrigation Drainage Syst 2002; 16: 33-45. [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Moore RJ. The probability-distributed principle and runoff production at point and basin scales. Hydrol Sci J 1985; 30: 273-297. [Article] [Google Scholar]
Fan YR, Huang GH, Baetz BW, et al. Development of integrated approaches for hydrological data assimilation through combination of ensemble Kalman filter and particle filter methods. J Hydrol 2017; 550: 412-426. [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Moradkhani H, Hsu KL, Gupta H, et al. Uncertainty assessment of hydrologic model states and parameters: Sequential data assimilation using the particle filter. Water Resour Res 2005; 41: W05012. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Perrin C, Michel C, Andréassian V. Improvement of a parsimonious model for streamflow simulation. J Hydrol 2003; 279: 275-289. [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Westra S, Thyer M, Leonard M, et al. A strategy for diagnosing and interpreting hydrological model nonstationarity. Water Resour Res 2014; 50: 5090-5113. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Smith KA, Barker LJ, Tanguy M, et al. A multi-objective ensemble approach to hydrological modelling in the UK: An application to historic drought reconstruction. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 2019; 23: 3247-3268. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Jakeman AJ, Hornberger GM. How much complexity is warranted in a rainfall-runoff model?. Water Resour Res 1993; 29: 2637-2649. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Jakeman AJ, Littlewood IG, Whitehead PG. Computation of the instantaneous unit hydrograph and identifiable component flows with application to two small upland catchments. J Hydrol 1990; 117: 275-300. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Vaze J, Post DA, Chiew FHS, et al. Climate non-stationarity – Validity of calibrated rainfall-runoff models for use in climate change studies. J Hydrol 2010; 394: 447-457. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Viney NR, Bormann H, Breuer L, et al. Assessing the impact of land use change on hydrology by ensemble modelling (LUCHEM) II: Ensemble combinations and predictions. Adv Water Resour 2009; 32: 147-158. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Shin MJ, Guillaume JHA, Croke BFW, et al. Addressing ten questions about conceptual rainfall-runoff models with global sensitivity analyses in R. J Hydrol 2013; 503: 135-152. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Shin MJ, Guillaume JHA, Croke BFW, et al. A review of foundational methods for checking the structural identifiability of models: Results for rainfall-runoff. J Hydrol 2015; 520: 1-16. [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Shin MJ, Kim CS. Assessment of the suitability of rainfall-runoff models by coupling performance statistics and sensitivity analysis. Hydrol Res 2017; 48: 1192-1213. [Article] [Google Scholar]
Croke B, Jakeman A. Use of the IHACRES rainfall-runoff model in arid and semi-arid regions. In: Wheater H, Sorooshian S, Sharma K (Eds.). Hydrological Modelling in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas (International Hydrology Series). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 41–48 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Fan YR, Shi X, Duan QY, et al. Towards reliable uncertainty quantification for hydrologic predictions. Part I: Development of a particle copula Metropolis Hastings method. J Hydrol 2022; 612: 128163. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Fan YR, Shi X, Duan QY, et al. Towards reliable uncertainty quantification for hydrologic predictions. Part II: Characterizing impacts of uncertain factors through an iterative factorial data assimilation framework. J Hydrol 2022; 612: 128136. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Duan Q, Pappenberger F, Wood A, et al. Handbook of Hydrometeorological Ensemble Forecasting. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2019 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Liu Z, Cheng L, Lin K, et al. A hybrid bayesian vine model for water level prediction. Environ Model Software 2021; 142: 105075. [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Raftery AE, Gneiting T, Balabdaoui F, et al. Using bayesian model averaging to calibrate forecast ensembles. Mon Weather Rev 2005; 133: 1155-1174. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Wu H, Su X, Singh VP, et al. Bayesian vine copulas improve agricultural drought prediction for long lead times. Agric For Meteor 2023; 331: 109326. [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Yang T, Liu X, Wang L, et al. Simulating hydropower discharge using multiple decision tree methods and a dynamical model merging technique. J Water Resour Plann Manage 2020; 146: 04019072. [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Yang T, Tao Y, Li J, et al. Multi-criterion model ensemble of CMIP5 surface air temperature over China. Theor Appl Climatol 2018; 132: 1057-1072. [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Duan Q, Ajami NK, Gao X, et al. Multi-model ensemble hydrologic prediction using Bayesian model averaging. Adv Water Resour 2007; 30: 1371-1386. [Article] [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.