The spatial and temporal performance of an ensemble of five gridded climate datasets (precipitation) (North American Regional Reanalysis, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts interim reanalysis, European Union Water and Global Change (WATCH) Watch Forcing data ERA-Interim, Global Forcing Data-Hydro, and The Australian National University spline interpolation) was evaluated towards quantifying gridded precipitation data ensemble uncertainty for hydrologic model input. Performance was evaluated over the Nelson–Churchill Watershed via comparison to two ground-based climate station datasets for year-to-year and season-to-season periods (1981–2010) at three spatial discretizations: distributed, sub-basin aggregation, and full watershed aggregation. All gridded datasets showed spatial performance variations, most notably in year-to-year total precipitation bias. Absolute minimum and maximum realizations were generated and assumed to represent total possible uncertainty bounds of the ensemble. Analyses showed that high magnitude precipitation events were often outside the uncertainty envelope; some increase in spatial aggregation, however, enveloped more observations. Results suggest that hydrologic models can reduce input uncertainty with some spatial aggregation, but begin to lose information as aggregation increases. Uncertainty bounds also revealed periods of elevated uncertainty. Assessing input ensemble bounds can be used to include high and low uncertainty periods in hydrologic model calibration and validation.

It is common in the literature to not consider all sources of uncertainty simultaneously: input, structural, parameter, and observed calibration data uncertainty, particularly in data-sparse environments due to data limitations and the complexities that arise from data limitations when propagating uncertainty downstream in a modelling chain. This paper presents results for the propagation of multiple sources of uncertainty towards the estimation of streamflow uncertainty in a data-sparse environment. Uncertainty sources are separated to ensure low likelihood uncertainty distribution tails are not rejected to examine the interaction of sources of uncertainty. Three daily resolution hydrologic models (HYPE, WATFLOOD, and HEC-HMS), forced with three precipitation ensemble realizations, generated from five gridded climate datasets, for the 1981–2010 period were used to examine the effects of cumulative propagation of uncertainty in the Lower Nelson River Basin as part of the BaySys project. Selected behavioral models produced an average range of Kling-Gupta Efficiency scores of 0.79–0.68. Two alternative methods for behavioral model selection were also considered that ingest streamflow uncertainty. Structural and parameter uncertainty was found to be insufficient, individually, by producing some uncertainty envelopes narrower than observed streamflow uncertainty. Combined structural and parameter uncertainty, propagated to simulated streamflow, often enveloped nearly 100% of observed streamflow values, however, high and low flow years were generally a source for lower reliabilities in simulated results. Including all sources of uncertainty generated simulated uncertainty bounds that enveloped most of the observed flow uncertainty bounds including improvement for high and low flow years across all gauges although the uncertainty bounds generated were of low likelihood. Overall, accounting for each source of uncertainty added value to the simulated uncertainty bounds when compared to hydrometric uncertainty; the inclusion of hydrometric uncertainty was key for identifying the improvements to simulated ensembles.

This study evaluates the 1981–2010 spatiotemporal differences in six available climate datasets (daily total precipitation and mean air temperature) over the Lower Nelson River Basin (LNRB) in ten of its sub-watersheds at seasonal and annual time scales. We find that the Australian National University spline interpolation (ANUSPLIN), and inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolated observations from 14 Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) meteorological stations show dry biases, whereas reanalysis products tend to overestimate precipitation across most of the basin. All datasets exhibit prominent disagreement in precipitation trends whereby the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) interim reanalysis (ERA-Interim) and European Union Water and Global Change (WATCH) Forcing Data ERA-Interim (WFDEI) show exceptional wetting trends, while the IDW and ANUSPLIN data manifest drying trends. Mean air temperature trends generally agree across most of the datasets; however, the North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) and IDW show stronger warming relative to other datasets. Overall, analyses of the different climate datasets and their ensemble reveal that the choice of input dataset plays a crucial role in the accurate estimation of historical climatic conditions, particularly when assessing trends, for the LNRB. Using the ensemble has the distinct advantage of preserving the unique strengths of all datasets and affords the opportunity to estimate the uncertainty for hydrologic modelling and climate change impact studies.