Articles | Volume 374
Proc. IAHS, 374, 41–51, 2016
Proc. IAHS, 374, 41–51, 2016

  17 Oct 2016

17 Oct 2016

Crystal balls into the future: are global circulation and water balance models ready?

Balázs M. Fekete et al.

Related authors

A framework for the cross-sectoral integration of multi-model impact projections: land use decisions under climate impacts uncertainties
K. Frieler, A. Levermann, J. Elliott, J. Heinke, A. Arneth, M. F. P. Bierkens, P. Ciais, D. B. Clark, D. Deryng, P. Döll, P. Falloon, B. Fekete, C. Folberth, A. D. Friend, C. Gellhorn, S. N. Gosling, I. Haddeland, N. Khabarov, M. Lomas, Y. Masaki, K. Nishina, K. Neumann, T. Oki, R. Pavlick, A. C. Ruane, E. Schmid, C. Schmitz, T. Stacke, E. Stehfest, Q. Tang, D. Wisser, V. Huber, F. Piontek, L. Warszawski, J. Schewe, H. Lotze-Campen, and H. J. Schellnhuber
Earth Syst. Dynam., 6, 447–460,,, 2015
Comparing projections of future changes in runoff from hydrological and biome models in ISI-MIP
J. C. S. Davie, P. D. Falloon, R. Kahana, R. Dankers, R. Betts, F. T. Portmann, D. Wisser, D. B. Clark, A. Ito, Y. Masaki, K. Nishina, B. Fekete, Z. Tessler, Y. Wada, X. Liu, Q. Tang, S. Hagemann, T. Stacke, R. Pavlick, S. Schaphoff, S. N. Gosling, W. Franssen, and N. Arnell
Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 359–374,,, 2013

Cited articles

Anagnostopoulos, G. G., Koutsoyiannis, D., Christofides, A., Efstratiadis, A., and Mamassis, N.: A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data, Hydrol. Sci. J., 55, 1094–1110,, 2010.
Bentsen, M., Bethke, I., Debernard, J. B., Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., Seland, Ø., Drange, H., Roelandt, C., Seierstad, I. A., Hoose, C., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: The Norwegian Earth System Model, NorESM1-M – Part 1: Description and basic evaluation of the physical climate, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 687–720,, 2013.
Biemans, H., Hutjes, R. W. A., Kabat, P., Strengers, B. J., Gerten, D., and Rost, S.: Effects of precipitation uncertainty on discharge calculations for main river basins, J. Hydrometeorol., 10, 1011–1025,, 2009.
Short summary
Variabilities and changes due to natural and anthropogenic causes in the water cycle always presented a challenge for water management planning. Practitioners traditionally coped with variabilities in the hydrological processes by assuming stationarity. Recently, this practice was questioned and more reliance on Global Circulation Models was put forward as an alternative. This paper takes a brief assessment of the state of Global Circulation Models (GCM) and their applications.