Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Hydrological Process...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Hydrological Processes
Article . 2014 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 1 versions
addClaim

Hydrological model uncertainty due to precipitation‐phase partitioning methods

Authors: Phillip Harder; John W. Pomeroy;

Hydrological model uncertainty due to precipitation‐phase partitioning methods

Abstract

AbstractPrecipitation‐phase partitioning methods (PPMs) that are used in simulating cold‐region hydrological processes vary significantly. Typically, PPMs are based on empirical algorithms that are driven by readily available near‐surface air temperature but ignore the physical processes controlling precipitation phase by not incorporating humidity. Because these lack any physical basis, there is uncertainty in their spatial and temporal transferability. Recently, humidity‐based methods that have a stronger physical basis and smaller uncertainty have been developed. To quantify the uncertainty that empirical PPMs introduce into hydrological simulations, a cold‐region hydrological modelling platform was used with a physically based PPM and a selection of empirical PPMs to calculate a set of snow regime and streamflow regime indices. The empirical PPMs included a single air temperature threshold and a double air temperature threshold, whereas the physically based PPM used a psychrometric energy balance model. All calculations were run with near‐surface meteorological observations that typically drive hydrological models. Intercomparison of the hydrological responses to the PPMs highlighted substantial differences between the wide range of responses to empirical algorithms and the very small uncertainty due to physically based methods. Uncertainty of hydrological processes, quantified by simulating over a range of air temperature thresholds, reached 20% for the rainfall fraction, 0.4 mm/day for basin discharge, 160 mm of peak snow water equivalent, 36 days for hydrological uncertainty snow cover duration, 26 days for snow‐free date and 10 days for peak discharge date. The implication of this research is that the reduced uncertainty derived from implementing physically based PPMs, for operational or research purposes, are greatest for snowpack prediction in mountain basins. However for streamflow discharge calculations, the reduced uncertainty was greatest in prairie and alpine basins due to the additional effects of precipitation phase calculations on frozen soil infiltration and summer snowmelt processes respectively. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Related Organizations
  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    68
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
68
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!