Environmental Modelling an Uncertain Future未来的环境模拟.pptVIP

* * * * * * * * * * Testing hydrological models as hypotheses: a limits of acceptability approach and the issue of disinformation Keith Beven, Paul Smith and Andy Wood Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University Hydrology as one of the inexact sciences Pattern of rainfall inputs Pattern of actual evapotranspiration Discharge estimates (requires “rating curve”) Catchment area Changes of storage Heterogeneity of soils representation of flow processes Flow through bedrock? Land Management Effects on soil surface Complexity of channels Hydrology as one of the inexact sciences The Water Balance Equation Q = R – Ea – ΔS All of terms subject to both epistemic and aleatory uncertainties……and there may be other inputs and outputs impossible to measure Formal statistical approach to likelihoods (generally) assumes that the (transformed) errors are additive and random (aleatory error) conditional on the model being correct Also assumes that every residual contributing to likelihood is informative in shaping the posterior probability distribution (the coherence argument) But in environmental modelling, many sources of error (in model structure, input data, parameter values,….) are a result of lack of knowledge (epistemic error) which will result in nonstationarity of error characteristics. Types of error and why they are important So to apply statistical approach need to find a model of the epistemic error or treat it as if it was aleatory (currently popular amongst hydrological Bayesians) Result will generally be to overestimate the information content of the residual series (some of which might well be disinformative – especially in hydrology) Types of error and why they are important Errors in the input and boundary condition data (A/E/D) Errors in the model structure (E/D?) Errors in estimates of parameter values (A/E) Commensurability of modelled and observed variables and parameters (A/E/D) Errors in the observations used to calibrate or evaluate mode