How do hydrologic modeling decisions affect the portrayal of climate change impacts?

End users face a range of subjective decisions when evaluating climate change impacts on hydrology, but the importance of these decisions is rarely assessed. In this paper, we evaluate the implications of hydrologic modelling choices on projected changes in the annual water balance, monthly simulated processes, and signature measures (i.e. metrics that quantify characteristics of the hydrologic catchment response) under a future climate scenario. To this end, we compare hydrologic changes computed with four different model structures - whose parameters have been obtained using a common calibration strategy - with hydrologic changes computed with a single model structure and parameter sets from multiple options for different calibration decisions (objective function, local optima, and calibration forcing dataset). Results show that both model structure selection and the parameter estimation strategy affect the direction and magnitude of projected changes in the annual water balance, and that the relative effects of these decisions are basin dependent. The analysis of monthly changes illustrates that parameter estimation strategies can provide similar or larger uncertainties in simulations of some hydrologic processes when compared with uncertainties coming from model choice. We found that the relative effects of modelling decisions on projected changes in catchment behaviour depend on the signature measure analysed. Furthermore, parameter sets with similar performance, but located in different regions of the parameter space, provide very different projections for future catchment behaviour. More generally, the results obtained in this study prompt the need to incorporate parametric uncertainty in multi-model frameworks to avoid an over-confident portrayal of climate change impacts.