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.

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 incertitude. Within the QBic³ project (Québec-Bavaria 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. <br><br> 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 reproduce historic runoff conditions from hydrological models using them, 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 those 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 in hydro-climatic projections, or safe to use as it does not alter the change signal of river runoff. <br><br> 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 period 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

Postprocessing of climate model outputs is usually performed to remove biases prior to performing climate change impact studies. The evaluation of the performance of bias correction methods is routinely done by comparing postprocessed outputs to observed data. However, such an approach does not take into account the inherent uncertainty linked to natural climate variability and may end up recommending unnecessary complex postprocessing methods. This study evaluates the performance of bias correction methods using natural variability as a baseline. This baseline implies that any bias between model simulations and observations is only significant if it is larger than the natural climate variability. Four bias correction methods are evaluated with respect to reproducing a set of climatic and hydrological statistics. When using natural variability as a baseline, complex bias correction methods still outperform the simplest ones for precipitation and temperature time series, although the differences are much smaller than in all previous studies. However, after driving a hydrological model using the bias-corrected precipitation and temperature, all bias correction methods perform similarly with respect to reproducing 46 hydrological metrics over two watersheds in different climatic zones. The sophisticated distribution mapping correction methods show little advantage over the simplest scaling method. The main conclusion is that simple bias correction methods appear to be just as good as other more complex methods for hydrological climate change impact studies. While sophisticated methods may appear more theoretically sound, this additional complexity appears to be unjustified in hydrological impact studies when taking into account the uncertainty linked to natural climate variability.

The first 10 years of the Ouranos Consortium are reviewed with a focus on the creation and delivery of climate scenarios for a wide range of users.