5 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
- ItemUnderstanding 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, FlorianGlobal 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.
- 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.
- ItemRegional contribution to variability and trends of global gross primary productivity(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2017) Chen, Min; Rafique, Rashid; Asrar, Ghassem R.; Bond-Lamberty, Ben; Ciais, Philippe; Zhao, Fang; Reyer, Christopher P.O.; Ostberg, Sebastian; Chang, Jinfeng; Ito, Akihiko; Yang, Jia; Zeng, Ning; Kalnay, Eugenia; West, Tristram; Leng, Guoyong; Francois, Louis; Munhoven, Guy; Henrot, Alexandra; Tian, Hanqin; Pan, Shufen; Nishina, Kazuya; Viovy, Nicolas; Morfopoulos, Catherine; Betts, Richard; Schaphoff, Sibyll; Steinkamp, JörgTerrestrial gross primary productivity (GPP) is the largest component of the global carbon cycle and a key process for understanding land ecosystems dynamics. In this study, we used GPP estimates from a combination of eight global biome models participating in the Inter-Sectoral Impact-Model Intercomparison Project phase 2a (ISIMIP2a), the Moderate Resolution Spectroradiometer (MODIS) GPP product, and a data-driven product (Model Tree Ensemble, MTE) to study the spatiotemporal variability of GPP at the regional and global levels. We found the 2000–2010 total global GPP estimated from the model ensemble to be 117 ± 13 Pg C yr−1 (mean ± 1 standard deviation), which was higher than MODIS (112 Pg C yr−1), and close to the MTE (120 Pg C yr−1). The spatial patterns of MODIS, MTE and ISIMIP2a GPP generally agree well, but their temporal trends are different, and the seasonality and inter-annual variability of GPP at the regional and global levels are not completely consistent. For the model ensemble, Tropical Latin America contributes the most to global GPP, Asian regions contribute the most to the global GPP trend, the Northern Hemisphere regions dominate the global GPP seasonal variations, and Oceania is likely the largest contributor to inter-annual variability of global GPP. However, we observed large uncertainties across the eight ISIMIP2a models, which are probably due to the differences in the formulation of underlying photosynthetic processes. The results of this study are useful in understanding the contributions of different regions to global GPP and its spatiotemporal variability, how the model- and observational-based GPP estimates differ from each other in time and space, and the relative strength of the eight models. Our results also highlight the models' ability to capture the seasonality of GPP that are essential for understanding the inter-annual and seasonal variability of GPP as a major component of the carbon cycle.
- 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.