4 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- ItemEvaluation of river flood extent simulated with multiple global hydrological models and climate forcings(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2021-8-13) Mester, Benedikt; Willner, Sven Norman; Frieler, Katja; Schewe, JacobGlobal flood models (GFMs) are increasingly being used to estimate global-scale societal and economic risks of river flooding. Recent validation studies have highlighted substantial differences in performance between GFMs and between validation sites. However, it has not been systematically quantified to what extent the choice of the underlying climate forcing and global hydrological model (GHM) influence flood model performance. Here, we investigate this sensitivity by comparing simulated flood extent to satellite imagery of past flood events, for an ensemble of three climate reanalyses and 11 GHMs. We study eight historical flood events spread over four continents and various climate zones. For most regions, the simulated inundation extent is relatively insensitive to the choice of GHM. For some events, however, individual GHMs lead to much lower agreement with observations than the others, mostly resulting from an overestimation of inundated areas. Two of the climate forcings show very similar results, while with the third, differences between GHMs become more pronounced. We further show that when flood protection standards are accounted for, many models underestimate flood extent, pointing to deficiencies in their flood frequency distribution. Our study guides future applications of these models, and highlights regions and models where targeted improvements might yield the largest performance gains.
- ItemHotspots of uncertainty in land-use and land-cover change projections: a global-scale model comparison(Hoboken, NJ : Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2016) Prestele, R.; Alexander, P.; Rounsevell, M.D.A.; Arneth, A.; Calvin, K.; Doelman, J.; Eitelberg, D.A.; Engström, K.; Fujimori, S.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; Humpenöder, F.; Jain, A.K.; Krisztin, T.; Kyle, P.; Meiyappan, P.; Popp, A.; Sands, R.D.; Schaldach, R.; Schüngel, J.; Stehfest, E.; Tabeau, A.; Van Meijl, H.; Van Vliet, J.; Verburg, P.H.
- ItemThe function-dominance correlation drives the direction and strength of biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relationships(Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 2021) Crawford, Michael S.; Barry, Kathryn E.; Clark, Adam T.; Farrior, Caroline E.; Hines, Jes; Ladouceur, Emma; Lichstein, Jeremy W.; Maréchaux, Isabelle; May, Felix; Mori, Akira S.; Reineking, Björn; Turnbull, Lindsay A.; Wirth, Christian; Rüger, NadjaCommunity composition is a primary determinant of how biodiversity change influences ecosystem functioning and, therefore, the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (BEF). We examine the consequences of community composition across six structurally realistic plant community models. We find that a positive correlation between species' functioning in monoculture versus their dominance in mixture with regard to a specific function (the "function-dominance correlation") generates a positive relationship between realised diversity and ecosystem functioning across species richness treatments. However, because realised diversity declines when few species dominate, a positive function-dominance correlation generates a negative relationship between realised diversity and ecosystem functioning within species richness treatments. Removing seed inflow strengthens the link between the function-dominance correlation and BEF relationships across species richness treatments but weakens it within them. These results suggest that changes in species' identities in a local species pool may more strongly affect ecosystem functioning than changes in species richness.
- ItemReduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project Phase 2: Synthesizing Earth System Knowledge for Probabilistic Climate Projections(Hoboken, NJ : Wiley-Blackwell, 2021) Nicholls, Z.; Meinshausen, M.; Lewis, J.; Corradi, M. Rojas; Dorheim, K.; Gasser, T.; Gieseke, R.; Hope, A.P.; Leach, N.J.; McBride, L.A.; Quilcaille, Y.; Rogelj, J.; Salawitch, R.J.; Samset, B.H.; Sandstad, M.; Shiklomanov, A.; Skeie, R.B.; Smith, C.J.; Smith, S.J.; Su, X.; Tsutsui, J.; Vega-Westhoff, B.; Woodard, D.L.Over the last decades, climate science has evolved rapidly across multiple expert domains. Our best tools to capture state-of-the-art knowledge in an internally self-consistent modeling framework are the increasingly complex fully coupled Earth System Models (ESMs). However, computational limitations and the structural rigidity of ESMs mean that the full range of uncertainties across multiple domains are difficult to capture with ESMs alone. The tools of choice are instead more computationally efficient reduced complexity models (RCMs), which are structurally flexible and can span the response dynamics across a range of domain-specific models and ESM experiments. Here we present Phase 2 of the Reduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project (RCMIP Phase 2), the first comprehensive intercomparison of RCMs that are probabilistically calibrated with key benchmark ranges from specialized research communities. Unsurprisingly, but crucially, we find that models which have been constrained to reflect the key benchmarks better reflect the key benchmarks. Under the low-emissions SSP1-1.9 scenario, across the RCMs, median peak warming projections range from 1.3 to 1.7°C (relative to 1850-1900, using an observationally based historical warming estimate of 0.8°C between 1850-1900 and 1995-2014). Further developing methodologies to constrain these projection uncertainties seems paramount given the international community's goal to contain warming to below 1.5°C above preindustrial in the long-term. Our findings suggest that users of RCMs should carefully evaluate their RCM, specifically its skill against key benchmarks and consider the need to include projections benchmarks either from ESM results or other assessments to reduce divergence in future projections.