2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.crm.2020.100265
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Changing climate risk in the UK: A multi-sectoral analysis using policy-relevant indicators

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
45
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
0
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, there are many uncertainties that were not included in this study, for example relating to (1) emissions scenario, (2) global climate model, (3) bias correction and downscaling methodology, (4) hydrological model structure, (5) hydrological model parameters, and (6) interactions between these uncertainty sources. Studies have shown that choice of climate model tends to be the largest source of uncertainty in hydrological climate change impact analyses (Wilby and Harris, 2006;Prudhomme and Davies, 2009;Arnell et al, 2021), especially when focussing on high flows (Kay et al, 2009;Bosshard et al, 2013;Vetter et al, 2017;De Niel et al, 2019). However, hydrological modelling uncertainties have been found to be large for some areas, particularly for low flows where the hydrological model structure can become the dominant source of uncertainty (Bosshard et al, 2013;De Niel et al, 2019).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, there are many uncertainties that were not included in this study, for example relating to (1) emissions scenario, (2) global climate model, (3) bias correction and downscaling methodology, (4) hydrological model structure, (5) hydrological model parameters, and (6) interactions between these uncertainty sources. Studies have shown that choice of climate model tends to be the largest source of uncertainty in hydrological climate change impact analyses (Wilby and Harris, 2006;Prudhomme and Davies, 2009;Arnell et al, 2021), especially when focussing on high flows (Kay et al, 2009;Bosshard et al, 2013;Vetter et al, 2017;De Niel et al, 2019). However, hydrological modelling uncertainties have been found to be large for some areas, particularly for low flows where the hydrological model structure can become the dominant source of uncertainty (Bosshard et al, 2013;De Niel et al, 2019).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They also looked at results on pathways to 2°C , 3°C and 4°C at the end of the twenty-first century, a different definition of warming levels to that used here. Results from Arnell et al (2020) are based on the probabilistic UKCP product rather than the RCM used here, but the median projections for the three common metrics (heating degree days, cooling degree days, growing degree days) agree well for each region of the UK (See the Arnell et al 2020 supplementary material and Fig. 10 from Arnell et al 2020).…”
Section: Heavy Rainfall Metrics Based On Nswws Criteriamentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Another recent study (Arnell et al 2020) has also looked at indicators of climate change impacts using UKCP but focused on the probabilistic forecasts and global model simulations.…”
Section: Heavy Rainfall Metrics Based On Nswws Criteriamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Comparing a number of probability distribution functions, Svensson et al (2017) concluded that the tweedie distribution is most suitable for calculating drought indicators in UK catchments. The use of SSI fitted using the tweedie distribution has previously been employed to characterize hydrological drought risk in the UK in Barker et al (2015; and Arnell et al (2021). Agglomerative hierarchical clustering, a dendrogram-based clustering approach, was used to group catchments with similar drought response during the 2010/12 drought using the TSclust R package (Montero and Vilar https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-123 Preprint.…”
Section: Streamflow Data and Hierarchical Clusteringmentioning
confidence: 99%