2006
DOI: 10.1007/s10584-005-9043-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Monte Carlo Assessment of Sampling Uncertainty of Climate Change Impacts on Water Resources Yield in Yorkshire, England

Abstract: Despite much effort over the last decade, there still remain many uncertainties in the assessed impacts of climate change on water resources. This study has carried out Monte Carlo Simulations to characterise the sampling uncertainties in assessed water resources impacts. The investigation employed data from catchments in northeast England, which incorporate water supply reservoirs. The impacts assessment used scenarios from three GCM experiments: (i) the Canadian first generation coupled model (CGCM1), (ii) t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

1
24
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
1
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The major source of uncertainty considered is that derived from several GCM scenarios where (1) parameters and algorithms in the hydrological model have been held constant, as determining the range in which the values will vary is difficult to determine and has been found to contribute little towards the uncertainty ; (2) the day-today variability has been confined; and (3) it is assumed that there is no change in the land cover response to climate due to the difficulties in determining the future impacts on the loss of permafrost with respect to vegetation cover and soil properties (Yi et al, 2007). These constraints are consistent with the climate impact assessment approach by Parry and Carter (1998) adopted by the other papers within this special issue (Singh et al, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 67%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The major source of uncertainty considered is that derived from several GCM scenarios where (1) parameters and algorithms in the hydrological model have been held constant, as determining the range in which the values will vary is difficult to determine and has been found to contribute little towards the uncertainty ; (2) the day-today variability has been confined; and (3) it is assumed that there is no change in the land cover response to climate due to the difficulties in determining the future impacts on the loss of permafrost with respect to vegetation cover and soil properties (Yi et al, 2007). These constraints are consistent with the climate impact assessment approach by Parry and Carter (1998) adopted by the other papers within this special issue (Singh et al, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 67%
“…This inclusion of future climate uncertainty on hydrological impacts with the use of climate change scenarios is of recent concern (Cameron et al, 2000;Horton et al, 2006;Kriaučiūnienė et al, 2009;Maurer, 2007;Minville et al, 2008;Nawaz and Adeloye, 2006;Prudhomme and Davis, 2009a,b). For an Arctic climate, several studies have examined the impacts of future climate scenarios (Bonsal and Kochtubajda, 2009;Kattsov et al, 2007;Nohara et al, 2006), however, few have examined the hydrological impacts in this region.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The outputs of these hydrological models then form input to water resources simulation models for the purpose of characterising systems performance (see e.g. Fowler et al, 2003;Nawaz and Adeloye, 2006). However, as widely recognised (see Raje and Mujumdar, 2010), there are uncertainties in GCMs climate change predictions not only between GCMs but also within GCMs (Peel et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There have been many studies of the impact of climate change on river flows in different parts of the UK (e.g. Charlton and Arnell, 2011;Diaz-Nieto and Wilby, 2005;Holman, 2006;Kay et al, 2009;Ledbetter et al, 2011;Limbrick et al, 2000;Lopez et al, 2009;Nawaz and Adeloye, 2006;Prudhomme and Davies, 2009;Prudhomme et al, 2010;Wilby and Harris, 2006;Kay and Jones, 2010), but coverage is uneven and methods vary. This means it is very difficult to compare different locations, complicating the identification of appropriate adaptation responses.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%