Browsing by Author "Telteu, Camelia-Eliza"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Historical and future changes in global flood magnitude - evidence from a model-observation investigation
    (Munich : EGU, 2020) Do, Hong Xuan; Zhao, Fang; Westra, Seth; Leonard, Michael; Gudmundsson, Lukas; Boulange, Julien Eric Stanislas; Chang, Jinfeng; Ciais, Philippe; Gerten, Dieter; Gosling, Simon N.; Müller Schmied, Hannes; Stacke, Tobias; Telteu, Camelia-Eliza; Wada, Yoshihide
    To improve the understanding of trends in extreme flows related to flood events at the global scale, historical and future changes of annual maxima of 7 d streamflow are investigated, using a comprehensive streamflow archive and six global hydrological models. The models' capacity to characterise trends in annual maxima of 7 d streamflow at the continental and global scale is evaluated across 3666 river gauge locations over the period from 1971 to 2005, focusing on four aspects of trends: (i) mean, (ii) standard deviation, (iii) percentage of locations showing significant trends and (iv) spatial pattern. Compared to observed trends, simulated trends driven by observed climate forcing generally have a higher mean, lower spread and a similar percentage of locations showing significant trends. Models show a low to moderate capacity to simulate spatial patterns of historical trends, with approximately only from 12 % to 25 % of the spatial variance of observed trends across all gauge stations accounted for by the simulations. Interestingly, there are statistically significant differences between trends simulated by global hydrological models (GHMs) forced with observational climate and by those forced by bias-corrected climate model output during the historical period, suggesting the important role of the stochastic natural (decadal, inter-annual) climate variability. Significant differences were found in simulated flood trends when averaged only at gauged locations compared to those averaged across all simulated grid cells, highlighting the potential for bias toward well-observed regions in our understanding of changes in floods. Future climate projections (simulated under the RCP2.6 and RCP6.0 greenhouse gas concentration scenarios) suggest a potentially high level of change in individual regions, with up to 35 % of cells showing a statistically significant trend (increase or decrease; at 10 % significance level) and greater changes indicated for the higher concentration pathway. Importantly, the observed streamflow database under-samples the percentage of locations consistently projected with increased flood hazards under the RCP6.0 greenhouse gas concentration scenario by more than an order of magnitude (0.9 % compared to 11.7 %). This finding indicates a highly uncertain future for both flood-prone communities and decision makers in the context of climate change. © Author(s) 2020.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Understanding each other's models: an introduction and a standard representation of 16 global water models to support intercomparison, improvement, and communication
    (Katlenburg-Lindau : Copernicus, 2021-6-24) Telteu, Camelia-Eliza; Müller Schmied, Hannes; Thiery, Wim; Leng, Guoyong; Burek, Peter; Liu, Xingcai; Boulange, Julien Eric Stanislas; Andersen, Lauren Seaby; Grillakis, Manolis; Gosling, Simon Newland; Satoh, Yusuke; Rakovec, Oldrich; Stacke, Tobias; Chang, Jinfeng; Wanders, Niko; Shah, Harsh Lovekumar; Trautmann, Tim; Mao, Ganquan; Hanasaki, Naota; Koutroulis, Aristeidis; Pokhrel, Yadu; Samaniego, Luis; Wada, Yoshihide; Mishra, Vimal; Liu, Junguo; Döll, Petra; Zhao, Fang; Gädeke, Anne; Rabin, Sam S.; Herz, Florian
    Global water models (GWMs) simulate the terrestrial water cycle on the global scale and are used to assess the impacts of climate change on freshwater systems. GWMs are developed within different modelling frameworks and consider different underlying hydrological processes, leading to varied model structures. Furthermore, the equations used to describe various processes take different forms and are generally accessible only from within the individual model codes. These factors have hindered a holistic and detailed understanding of how different models operate, yet such an understanding is crucial for explaining the results of model evaluation studies, understanding inter-model differences in their simulations, and identifying areas for future model development. This study provides a comprehensive overview of how 16 state-of-the-art GWMs are designed. We analyse water storage compartments, water flows, and human water use sectors included in models that provide simulations for the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project phase 2b (ISIMIP2b). We develop a standard writing style for the model equations to enhance model intercomparison, improvement, and communication. In this study, WaterGAP2 used the highest number of water storage compartments, 11, and CWatM used 10 compartments. Six models used six compartments, while four models (DBH, JULES-W1, Mac-PDM.20, and VIC) used the lowest number, three compartments. WaterGAP2 simulates five human water use sectors, while four models (CLM4.5, CLM5.0, LPJmL, and MPI-HM) simulate only water for the irrigation sector. We conclude that, even though hydrological processes are often based on similar equations for various processes, in the end these equations have been adjusted or models have used different values for specific parameters or specific variables. The similarities and differences found among the models analysed in this study are expected to enable us to reduce the uncertainty in multi-model ensembles, improve existing hydrological processes, and integrate new processes.