2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- 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.