This paper assesses the suitability of bias-corrected (BC) WRF daily rainfall across the state of Victoria, Australia, for input to hydrological models to determine plausible climate change impacts on runoff. It compares rainfall and runoff changes using BC WRF with those obtained from empirical scaling (ES) using raw WRF changes. It concludes that BC-derived changes are more plausible than ES-derived changes but that remaining biases in BC WRF daily data add uncertainty to runoff projections.

Providing large-scale (regional or global) simulation of floods at fine spatial resolution is difficult due to computational constraints but is necessary to provide consistent estimates of hazards, especially in data-scarce regions. We assessed the capability of an advanced global-scale river model to simulate an extreme flood at fine resolution. We found that when multiple flow connections in rivers are represented, the model can provide reliable fine-resolution predictions of flood inundation.

Soil carbon models are primary tools for projecting soil carbon balance under changing environment and management. This study shows that the carbon model produces divergent projections but accurate reproduction of measured soil carbon. This projection uncertainty is mainly due to an insufficient understanding of microbial processes and soil carbon composition. Climate conditions and land management in terms of carbon input also have significant effects.

Most of the forested headwater catchments are an important source of water supply in many parts of the world. A prime example is southeast Australia where forests supply major river systems and towns and cities with water. It is critical for an informed and adaptive water resource management to understand changes in streamflow caused by vegetation changes in these headwater forest catchments. Natural disturbances such as bushfires and anthropogenic activities like forestation, deforestation, or

This paper assesses four bias correction methods applied to RCM-simulated precipitation, and their follow-on impact on modelled runoff. The differences between the methods are small, mainly due to the substantial corrections required and inconsistent errors over time. The methods cannot overcome limitations of the RCM in simulating precipitation sequence, which affects runoff generation. Furthermore, bias correction can introduce additional uncertainty to change signals in modelled runoff.