6 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
- ItemConsecutive extreme flooding and heat wave in Japan: Are they becoming a norm?(Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 2019) Wang, Simon S.-Y.; Kim, Hyungjun; Coumou, Dim; Yoon, Jin-Ho; Zhao, Lin; Gillies, Robert R.[No abstract available]
- 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.
- ItemEvapotranspiration simulations in ISIMIP2a—Evaluation of spatio-temporal characteristics with a comprehensive ensemble of independent datasets(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2018) Wartenburger, Richard; Seneviratne, Sonia I; Hirschi, Martin; Chang, Jinfeng; Ciais, Philippe; Deryng, Delphine; Elliott, Joshua; Folberth, Christian; Gosling, Simon N; Gudmundsson, Lukas; Henrot, Alexandra-Jane; Hickler, Thomas; Ito, Akihiko; Khabarov, Nikolay; Kim, Hyungjun; Leng, Guoyong; Liu, Junguo; Liu, Xingcai; Masaki, Yoshimitsu; Morfopoulos, Catherine; Müller, Christoph; Müller Schmied, Hannes; Nishina, Kazuya; Orth, Rene; Pokhrel, Yadu; Pugh, Thomas A M; Satoh, Yusuke; Schaphoff, Sibyll; Schmid, Erwin; Sheffield, Justin; Stacke, Tobias; Steinkamp, Joerg; Tang, Qiuhong; Thiery, Wim; Wada, Yoshihide; Wang, Xuhui; Weedon, Graham P; Yang, Hong; Zhou, TianActual land evapotranspiration (ET) is a key component of the global hydrological cycle and an essential variable determining the evolution of hydrological extreme events under different climate change scenarios. However, recently available ET products show persistent uncertainties that are impeding a precise attribution of human-induced climate change. Here, we aim at comparing a range of independent global monthly land ET estimates with historical model simulations from the global water, agriculture, and biomes sectors participating in the second phase of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2a). Among the independent estimates, we use the EartH2Observe Tier-1 dataset (E2O), two commonly used reanalyses, a pre-compiled ensemble product (LandFlux-EVAL), and an updated collection of recently published datasets that algorithmically derive ET from observations or observations-based estimates (diagnostic datasets). A cluster analysis is applied in order to identify spatio-temporal differences among all datasets and to thus identify factors that dominate overall uncertainties. The clustering is controlled by several factors including the model choice, the meteorological forcing used to drive the assessed models, the data category (models participating in the different sectors of ISIMIP2a, E2O models, diagnostic estimates, reanalysis-based estimates or composite products), the ET scheme, and the number of soil layers in the models. By using these factors to explain spatial and spatio-temporal variabilities in ET, we find that the model choice mostly dominates (24%–40% of variance explained), except for spatio-temporal patterns of total ET, where the forcing explains the largest fraction of the variance (29%). The most dominant clusters of datasets are further compared with individual diagnostic and reanalysis-based estimates to assess their representation of selected heat waves and droughts in the Great Plains, Central Europe and western Russia. Although most of the ET estimates capture these extreme events, the generally large spread among the entire ensemble indicates substantial uncertainties.
- ItemThe PROFOUND Database for evaluating vegetation models and simulating climate impacts on European forests(Katlenburg-Lindau : Copernics Publications, 2020) Reyer, Christopher P.O.; Silveyra Gonzalez, Ramiro; Dolos, Klara; Hartig, Florian; Hauf, Ylva; Noack, Matthias; Lasch-Born, Petra; Rötzer, Thomas; Pretzsch, Hans; Meesenburg, Henning; Fleck, Stefan; Wagner, Markus; Bolte, Andreas; Sanders, Tanja G.M.; Kolari, Pasi; Mäkelä, Annikki; Vesala, Timo; Mammarella, Ivan; Pumpanen, Jukka; Collalti, Alessio; Trotta, Carlo; Matteucci, Giorgio; D'Andrea, Ettore; Foltýnová, Lenka; Krejza, Jan; Ibrom, Andreas; Pilegaard, Kim; Loustau, Denis; Bonnefond, Jean-Marc; Berbigier, Paul; Picart, Delphine; Lafont, Sébastien; Dietze, Michael; Cameron, David; Vieno, Massimo; Tian, Hanqin; Palacios-Orueta, Alicia; Cicuendez, Victor; Recuero, Laura; Wiese, Klaus; Büchner, Matthias; Lange, Stefan; Volkholz, Jan; Kim, Hyungjun; Horemans, Joanna A.; Bohn, Friedrich; Steinkamp, Jörg; Chikalanov, Alexander; Weedon, Graham P.; Sheffield, Justin; Babst, Flurin; Vega del Valle, Iliusi; Suckow, Felicitas; Martel, Simon; Mahnken, Mats; Gutsch, Martin; Frieler, KatjaProcess-based vegetation models are widely used to predict local and global ecosystem dynamics and climate change impacts. Due to their complexity, they require careful parameterization and evaluation to ensure that projections are accurate and reliable. The PROFOUND Database (PROFOUND DB) provides a wide range of empirical data on European forests to calibrate and evaluate vegetation models that simulate climate impacts at the forest stand scale. A particular advantage of this database is its wide coverage of multiple data sources at different hierarchical and temporal scales, together with environmental driving data as well as the latest climate scenarios. Specifically, the PROFOUND DB provides general site descriptions, soil, climate, CO2, nitrogen deposition, tree and forest stand level, and remote sensing data for nine contrasting forest stands distributed across Europe. Moreover, for a subset of five sites, time series of carbon fluxes, atmospheric heat conduction and soil water are also available. The climate and nitrogen deposition data contain several datasets for the historic period and a wide range of future climate change scenarios following the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0, RCP8.5). We also provide pre-industrial climate simulations that allow for model runs aimed at disentangling the contribution of climate change to observed forest productivity changes. The PROFOUND DB is available freely as a “SQLite” relational database or “ASCII” flat file version (at https://doi.org/10.5880/PIK.2020.006/; Reyer et al., 2020). The data policies of the individual contributing datasets are provided in the metadata of each data file. The PROFOUND DB can also be accessed via the ProfoundData R package (https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ProfoundData; Silveyra Gonzalez et al., 2020), which provides basic functions to explore, plot and extract the data for model set-up, calibration and evaluation.
- 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.