The Canadian Regional Climate Model (CRCM5) Large Ensemble (CRCM5-LE) consists of a dynamically downscaled version of the CanESM2 50-member initial-conditions ensemble (CanESM2-LE). The downscaling was performed at 12-km resolution over two domains, Europe (EU) and northeastern North America (NNA), and the simulations extend from 1950 to 2099, following the RCP8.5 scenario. In terms of validation, warm biases are found over the EU and NNA domains during summer, whereas during winter cold and warm biases appear over EU and NNA, respectively. For precipitation, simulations are generally wetter than the observations but slight dry biases also occur in summer. Climate change projections for 2080–99 (relative to 2000–19) show temperature changes reaching 8°C in summer over some parts of Europe, and exceeding 12°C in northern Québec during winter. For precipitation, central Europe will become much dryer during summer (−2 mm day−1) and wetter during winter (>1.2 mm day−1). Similar changes are observed over NNA, although summer drying is not as prominent. Projected changes in temperature interannual variability were also investigated, generally showing increasing and decreasing variability during summer and winter, respectively. Temperature variability is found to increase by more than 70% in some parts of central Europe during summer and to increase by 80% in the northernmost part of Québec during the month of May as the snow cover becomes subject to high year-to-year variability in the future. Finally, CanESM2-LE and CRCM5-LE are compared with respect to extreme precipitation, showing evidence that the higher resolution of CRCM5-LE allows a more realistic representation of local extremes, especially over coastal and mountainous regions.

No abstract

Abstract. In climate change impact research, the assessment of future river runoff as well as the catchment-scale water balance is impeded by different sources of modeling uncertainty. Some research has already been done in order to quantify the uncertainty of climate projections originating from the climate models and the downscaling techniques, as well as from the internal variability evaluated from climate model member ensembles. Yet, the use of hydrological models adds another layer of uncertainty. Within the QBic3 project (Québec-Bavarian International Collaboration on Climate Change), the relative contributions to the overall uncertainty from the whole model chain (from global climate models to water management models) are investigated using an ensemble of multiple climate and hydrological models.Although there are many options to downscale global climate projections to the regional scale, recent impact studies tend to use regional climate models (RCMs). One reason for that is that the physical coherence between atmospheric and land-surface variables is preserved. The coherence between temperature and precipitation is of particular interest in hydrology. However, the regional climate model outputs often are biased compared to the observed climatology of a given region. Therefore, biases in those outputs are often corrected to facilitate the reproduction of historic runoff conditions when used in hydrological models, even if those corrections alter the relationship between temperature and precipitation. So, as bias correction may affect the consistency between RCM output variables, the use of correction techniques and even the use of (biased) climate model data itself is sometimes disputed among scientists. For these reasons, the effect of bias correction on simulated runoff regimes and the relative change in selected runoff indicators is explored. If it affects the conclusion of climate change analysis in hydrology, we should consider it as a source of uncertainty. If not, the application of bias correction methods is either unnecessary to obtain the change signal in hydro-climatic projections, or safe to use for the production of present and future river runoff scenarios as it does not alter the change signal.The results of the present paper highlight the analysis of daily runoff simulated with four different hydrological models in two natural-flow catchments, driven by different regional climate models for a reference and a future period. As expected, bias correction of climate model outputs is important for the reproduction of the runoff regime of the past, regardless of the hydrological model used. Then again, its impact on the relative change of flow indicators between reference and future periods is weak for most indicators, with the exception of the timing of the spring flood peak. Still, our results indicate that the impact of bias correction on runoff indicators increases with bias in the climate simulations.

Abstract. Over the recent years, several research efforts investigated the impact of climate change on water resources for different regions of the world. The projection of future river flows is affected by different sources of uncertainty in the hydro-climatic modelling chain. One of the aims of the QBic 3 project (Québec-Bavarian International Collaboration on Climate Change) is to assess the contribution to uncertainty of hydrological models by using an ensemble of hydrological models presenting a diversity of structural complexity (i.e., lumped, semi distributed and distributed models). The study investigates two humid, mid-latitude catchments with natural flow conditions; one located in Southern Québec (Canada) and one in Southern Bavaria (Germany). Daily flow is simulated with four different hydrological models, forced by outputs from regional climate models driven by global climate models over a reference and a future period. The results show that, for our hydrological model ensemble, the choice of model strongly affects the climate change response of selected hydrological indicators, especially those related to low flows. Indicators related to high flows seem less sensitive on the choice of the hydrological model.

No abstract