3 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- 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.
- ItemMultimodel uncertainty changes in simulated river flows induced by human impact parameterizations(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2017) Liu, Xingcai; Tang, Qiuhong; Cui, Huijuan; Mu, Mengfei; Gerten, Dieter; Gosling, Simon N.; Masaki, Yoshimitsu; Satoh, Yusuke; Wada, YoshihideHuman impacts increasingly affect the global hydrological cycle and indeed dominate hydrological changes in some regions. Hydrologists have sought to identify the human-impact-induced hydrological variations via parameterizing anthropogenic water uses in global hydrological models (GHMs). The consequently increased model complexity is likely to introduce additional uncertainty among GHMs. Here, using four GHMs, between-model uncertainties are quantified in terms of the ratio of signal to noise (SNR) for average river flow during 1971–2000 simulated in two experiments, with representation of human impacts (VARSOC) and without (NOSOC). It is the first quantitative investigation of between-model uncertainty resulted from the inclusion of human impact parameterizations. Results show that the between-model uncertainties in terms of SNRs in the VARSOC annual flow are larger (about 2% for global and varied magnitude for different basins) than those in the NOSOC, which are particularly significant in most areas of Asia and northern areas to the Mediterranean Sea. The SNR differences are mostly negative (−20% to 5%, indicating higher uncertainty) for basin-averaged annual flow. The VARSOC high flow shows slightly lower uncertainties than NOSOC simulations, with SNR differences mostly ranging from −20% to 20%. The uncertainty differences between the two experiments are significantly related to the fraction of irrigation areas of basins. The large additional uncertainties in VARSOC simulations introduced by the inclusion of parameterizations of human impacts raise the urgent need of GHMs development regarding a better understanding of human impacts. Differences in the parameterizations of irrigation, reservoir regulation and water withdrawals are discussed towards potential directions of improvements for future GHM development. We also discuss the advantages of statistical approaches to reduce the between-model uncertainties, and the importance of calibration of GHMs for not only better performances of historical simulations but also more robust and confidential future projections of hydrological changes under a changing environment.
- 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.