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

Abstract. As climate change is projected to alter both temperature and precipitation, snow-controlled mid-latitude catchments are expected to experience substantial shifts in their seasonal regime, which will have direct implications for water management. In order to provide authoritative projections of climate change impacts, the uncertainty inherent to all components of the modelling chain needs to be accounted for. This study assesses the uncertainty in potential impacts of climate change on the hydro-climate of a headwater sub-catchment of New Zealand's largest catchment (the Clutha River) using a fully distributed hydrological model (WaSiM) and unique ensemble encompassing different uncertainty sources: general circulation model (GCM), emission scenario, bias correction and snow model. The inclusion of snow models is particularly important, given that (1) they are a rarely considered aspect of uncertainty in hydrological modelling studies, and (2) snow has a considerable influence on seasonal patterns of river flow in alpine catchments such as the Clutha. Projected changes in river flow for the 2050s and 2090s encompass substantial increases in streamflow from May to October, and a decline between December and March. The dominant drivers are changes in the seasonal distribution of precipitation (for the 2090s +29 to +84 % in winter) and substantial decreases in the seasonal snow storage due to temperature increase. A quantitative comparison of uncertainty identified GCM structure as the dominant contributor in the seasonal streamflow signal (44-57 %) followed by emission scenario (16-49 %), bias correction (4-22 %) and snow model (3-10 %). While these findings suggest that the role of the snow model is comparatively small, its contribution to the overall uncertainty was still found to be noticeable for winter and summer.

Gridded datasets of precipitation are of great importance to evaluate recent climate models and are frequently applied to select a subset of available models. As climate models are still prone to biases on the regional scale, gridded datasets are also essential to correct or adjust these biases. Various studies revealed considerable differences, that is, observational uncertainty, in the available gridded datasets of precipitation, especially over complex terrain. This study focuses on the impacts of observational uncertainty on the evaluation, selection, and bias correction of 15 regional climate model (RCM) simulations provided through the EURO-CORDEX initiative over the alpine Adige catchment located in northern Italy. Nine reference datasets originating from observations, reanalysis, and remote sensing are applied to evaluate the performance of RCMs and select a subset based on validity. These reference datasets are then applied to bias correct the RCM ensemble using a standard quantile mapping method, and the resulting changes in the projections are assessed. The presented results show a selection of similar RCMs, indicating that observational uncertainty is lower than model uncertainty. The influence of the choice of the reference dataset on bias correction is negligible for the climate change signals. Small differences in projected change signals can be attributed to model selection. As expected, the choice of the reference dataset strongly influences future projections of precipitation even more pronounced for the extremes. The findings of this study highlight the need to account for observational uncertainty for bias correction of RCM simulations for impact modeling studies.