6 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
- ItemHow evaluation of global hydrological models can help to improve credibility of river discharge projections under climate change(Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 2020) Krysanova, Valentina; Zaherpour, Jamal; Didovets, Iulii; Gosling, Simon N.; Gerten, Dieter; Hanasaki, Naota; Müller Schmied, Hannes; Pokhrel, Yadu; Satoh, Yusuke; Tang, Qiuhong; Wada, YoshihideImportance of evaluation of global hydrological models (gHMs) before doing climate impact assessment was underlined in several studies. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of six gHMs in simulating observed discharge for a set of 57 large catchments applying common metrics with thresholds for the monthly and seasonal dynamics and summarize them estimating an aggregated index of model performance for each model in each basin. One model showed a good performance, and other five showed a weak or poor performance in most of the basins. In 15 catchments, evaluation results of all models were poor. The model evaluation was supplemented by climate impact assessment for a subset of 12 representative catchments using (1) usual ensemble mean approach and (2) weighted mean approach based on model performance, and the outcomes were compared. The comparison of impacts in terms of mean monthly and mean annual discharges using two approaches has shown that in four basins, differences were negligible or small, and in eight catchments, differences in mean monthly, mean annual discharge or both were moderate to large. The spreads were notably decreased in most cases when the second method was applied. It can be concluded that for improving credibility of projections, the model evaluation and application of the weighted mean approach could be recommended, especially if the mean monthly (seasonal) impacts are of interest, whereas the ensemble mean approach could be applied for projecting the mean annual changes. The calibration of gHMs could improve their performance and, consequently, the credibility of projections. © 2020, The Author(s).
- ItemState-of-the-art global models underestimate impacts from climate extremes([London] : Nature Publishing Group UK, 2019) Schewe, Jacob; Gosling, Simon N.; Reyer, Christopher; Zhao, Fang; Ciais, Philippe; Elliott, Joshua; Francois, Louis; Huber, Veronika; Lotze, Heike K.; Seneviratne, Sonia I.; van Vliet, Michelle T. H.; Vautard, Robert; Wada, Yoshihide; Breuer, Lutz; Büchner, Matthias; Carozza, David A.; Chang, Jinfeng; Coll, Marta; Deryng, Delphine; de Wit, Allard; Eddy, Tyler D.; Folberth, Christian; Frieler, Katja; Friend, Andrew D.; Gerten, Dieter; Gudmundsson, Lukas; Hanasaki, Naota; Ito, Akihiko; Khabarov, Nikolay; Kim, Hyungjun; Lawrence, Peter; Morfopoulos, Catherine; Müller, Christoph; Müller Schmied, Hannes; Orth, René; Ostberg, Sebastian; Pokhrel, Yadu; Pugh, Thomas A. M.; Sakurai, Gen; Satoh, Yusuke; Schmid, Erwin; Stacke, Tobias; Steenbeek, Jeroen; Steinkamp, Jörg; Tang, Qiuhong; Tian, Hanqin; Tittensor, Derek P.; Volkholz, Jan; Wang, Xuhui; Warszawski, LilaGlobal impact models represent process-level understanding of how natural and human systems may be affected by climate change. Their projections are used in integrated assessments of climate change. Here we test, for the first time, systematically across many important systems, how well such impact models capture the impacts of extreme climate conditions. Using the 2003 European heat wave and drought as a historical analogue for comparable events in the future, we find that a majority of models underestimate the extremeness of impacts in important sectors such as agriculture, terrestrial ecosystems, and heat-related human mortality, while impacts on water resources and hydropower are overestimated in some river basins; and the spread across models is often large. This has important implications for economic assessments of climate change impacts that rely on these models. It also means that societal risks from future extreme events may be greater than previously thought.
- ItemProjecting Exposure to Extreme Climate Impact Events Across Six Event Categories and Three Spatial Scales(Hoboken, NJ : Wiley-Blackwell, 2020) Lange, Stefan; Volkholz, Jan; Geiger, Tobias; Zhao, Fang; Vega, Iliusi; Veldkamp, Ted; Reyer, Christopher P.O.; Warszawski, Lila; Huber, Veronika; Jägermeyr, Jonas; Schewe, Jacob; Bresch, David N.; Büchner, Matthias; Chang, Jinfeng; Ciais, Philippe; Dury, Marie; Emanuel, Kerry; Folberth, Christian; Gerten, Dieter; Gosling, Simon N.; Grillakis, Manolis; Hanasaki, Naota; Henrot, Alexandra-Jane; Hickler, Thomas; Honda, Yasushi; Ito, Akihiko; Khabarov, Nikolay; Koutroulis, Aristeidis; Liu, Wenfeng; Müller, Christoph; Nishina, Kazuya; Ostberg, Sebastian; Müller Schmied, Hannes; Seneviratne, Sonia I.; Stacke, Tobias; Steinkamp, Jörg; Thiery, Wim; Wada, Yoshihide; Willner, Sven; Yang, Hong; Yoshikawa, Minoru; Yue, Chao; Frieler, KatjaThe extent and impact of climate-related extreme events depend on the underlying meteorological, hydrological, or climatological drivers as well as on human factors such as land use or population density. Here we quantify the pure effect of historical and future climate change on the exposure of land and population to extreme climate impact events using an unprecedentedly large ensemble of harmonized climate impact simulations from the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project phase 2b. Our results indicate that global warming has already more than doubled both the global land area and the global population annually exposed to all six categories of extreme events considered: river floods, tropical cyclones, crop failure, wildfires, droughts, and heatwaves. Global warming of 2°C relative to preindustrial conditions is projected to lead to a more than fivefold increase in cross-category aggregate exposure globally. Changes in exposure are unevenly distributed, with tropical and subtropical regions facing larger increases than higher latitudes. The largest increases in overall exposure are projected for the population of South Asia. ©2020. The Authors.
- ItemGlobal scenarios of irrigation water abstractions for bioenergy production: a systematic review(Munich : EGU, 2021) Stenzel, Fabian; Gerten, Dieter; Hanasaki, NaotaMany scenarios of future climate evolution and its anthropogenic drivers include considerable amounts of bioenergy as a fuel source, as a negative emission technology, and for providing electricity. The associated freshwater abstractions for irrigation of dedicated biomass plantations might be substantial and therefore potentially increase water limitation and stress in affected regions; however, assumptions and quantities of water use provided in the literature vary strongly. This paper reviews existing global assessments of freshwater abstractions for bioenergy production and puts these estimates into the context of scenarios of other water-use sectors. We scanned the available literature and (out of 430 initial hits) found 16 publications (some of which include several bioenergy-water-use scenarios) with reported values on global irrigation water abstractions for biomass plantations, suggesting water withdrawals in the range of 128.4 to 9000 km3 yr−1, which would come on top of (or compete with) agricultural, industrial, and domestic water withdrawals. To provide an understanding of the origins of this large range, we present the diverse underlying assumptions, discuss major study differences, and calculate an inverse water-use efficiency (iwue), which facilitates comparison of the required freshwater amounts per produced biomass harvest. We conclude that due to the potentially high water demands and the tradeoffs that might go along with them, bioenergy should be an integral part of global assessments of freshwater demand and use. For interpreting and comparing reported estimates of possible future bioenergy water abstractions, full disclosure of parameters and assumptions is crucial. A minimum set should include the complete water balances of bioenergy production systems (including partitioning of blue and green water), bioenergy crop species and associated water-use efficiencies, rainfed and irrigated bioenergy plantation locations (including total area and meteorological conditions), and total biomass harvest amounts. In the future, a model intercomparison project with standardized parameters and scenarios would be helpful.
- ItemThe critical role of the routing scheme in simulating peak river discharge in global hydrological models(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2017) Zhao, Fang; Veldkamp, Ted I.E.; Frieler, Katja; Schewe, Jacob; Ostberg, Sebastian; Willner, Sven; Schauberger, Bernhard; Gosling, Simon N.; Müller Schmied, Hannes; Portmann, Felix T.; Leng, Guoyong; Huang, Maoyi; Liu, Xingcai; Tang, Qiuhong; Hanasaki, Naota; Biemans, Hester; Gerten, Dieter; Satoh, Yusuke; Pokhrel, Yadu; Stacke, Tobias; Ciais, Philippe; Chang, Jinfeng; Ducharne, Agnes; Guimberteau, Matthieu; Wada, Yoshihide; Kim, Hyungjun; Yamazaki, DaiGlobal hydrological models (GHMs) have been applied to assess global flood hazards, but their capacity to capture the timing and amplitude of peak river discharge—which is crucial in flood simulations—has traditionally not been the focus of examination. Here we evaluate to what degree the choice of river routing scheme affects simulations of peak discharge and may help to provide better agreement with observations. To this end we use runoff and discharge simulations of nine GHMs forced by observational climate data (1971–2010) within the ISIMIP2a project. The runoff simulations were used as input for the global river routing model CaMa-Flood. The simulated daily discharge was compared to the discharge generated by each GHM using its native river routing scheme. For each GHM both versions of simulated discharge were compared to monthly and daily discharge observations from 1701 GRDC stations as a benchmark. CaMa-Flood routing shows a general reduction of peak river discharge and a delay of about two to three weeks in its occurrence, likely induced by the buffering capacity of floodplain reservoirs. For a majority of river basins, discharge produced by CaMa-Flood resulted in a better agreement with observations. In particular, maximum daily discharge was adjusted, with a multi-model averaged reduction in bias over about 2/3 of the analysed basin area. The increase in agreement was obtained in both managed and near-natural basins. Overall, this study demonstrates the importance of routing scheme choice in peak discharge simulation, where CaMa-Flood routing accounts for floodplain storage and backwater effects that are not represented in most GHMs. Our study provides important hints that an explicit parameterisation of these processes may be essential in future impact studies.
- ItemWorldwide evaluation of mean and extreme runoff from six global-scale hydrological models that account for human impacts(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2018) Zaherpour, Jamal; Gosling, Simon N.; Mount, Nick; Müller Schmied, Hannes; Veldkamp, Ted I. E.; Dankers, Rutger; Eisner, Stephanie; Gerten, Dieter; Gudmundsson, Lukas; Haddeland, Ingjerd; Hanasaki, Naota; Kim, Hyungjun; Leng, Guoyong; Liu, Junguo; Masaki, Yoshimitsu; Oki, Taikan; Pokhrel, Yadu; Satoh, Yusuke; Schewe, Jacob; Wada, YoshihideGlobal-scale hydrological models are routinely used to assess water scarcity, flood hazards and droughts worldwide. Recent efforts to incorporate anthropogenic activities in these models have enabled more realistic comparisons with observations. Here we evaluate simulations from an ensemble of six models participating in the second phase of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Inter-comparison Project (ISIMIP2a). We simulate monthly runoff in 40 catchments, spatially distributed across eight global hydrobelts. The performance of each model and the ensemble mean is examined with respect to their ability to replicate observed mean and extreme runoff under human-influenced conditions. Application of a novel integrated evaluation metric to quantify the models' ability to simulate timeseries of monthly runoff suggests that the models generally perform better in the wetter equatorial and northern hydrobelts than in drier southern hydrobelts. When model outputs are temporally aggregated to assess mean annual and extreme runoff, the models perform better. Nevertheless, we find a general trend in the majority of models towards the overestimation of mean annual runoff and all indicators of upper and lower extreme runoff. The models struggle to capture the timing of the seasonal cycle, particularly in northern hydrobelts, while in southern hydrobelts the models struggle to reproduce the magnitude of the seasonal cycle. It is noteworthy that over all hydrological indicators, the ensemble mean fails to perform better than any individual model—a finding that challenges the commonly held perception that model ensemble estimates deliver superior performance over individual models. The study highlights the need for continued model development and improvement. It also suggests that caution should be taken when summarising the simulations from a model ensemble based upon its mean output.