Evaluation and comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 model performance in simulating the runoff

被引:0
|
作者
Hai Guo
Chesheng Zhan
Like Ning
Zhonghe Li
Shi Hu
机构
[1] Chinese Academy of Sciences,Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Network Observation and Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research
[2] University of Chinese Academy of Sciences,Key Laboratory of Water Cycle and Related Land Surface Processes, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research
[3] Chinese Academy of Sciences,undefined
来源
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
This study evaluates and compares the performance of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) and CMIP5 in simulating the runoff on global-scale and eight large-scale basins, over the period 1981–2005 using percent bias (PBIAS), correlation coefficient (CC), root-mean-square error (RMSE), Theil-Sen median trend, and the Taylor diagram. The CMIP models are ranked by comprehensive rating index (MR), which is determined by PBIAS, CC, and RMSE three metrics. Linear Optimal Runoff Aggregate (LORA), Global Runoff Reconstruction (GRUN), and ERA5-Land were selected as reference datasets. LORA was used as the main reference data to evaluate the historical runoff results of CMIP from 1981 to 2012 for three aspects: trend, PBIAS, and uncertainty. Results reveal that (i) CMIP6 models have obviously overvalued on the global and basins (except Amazon and Lena basin); this phenomenon was more prominent in arid and semi-arid areas (Murray-Darling and Nile basin). (ii) Compared with CMIP5 models, CMIP6 models have less uncertainty on the global scale, but it has not made outstanding progress on the basin scale. (iii) CMIP6 multi-model ensemble mean (CMIP6_MMEs) has better simulation effect than most individual models, which reduces the uncertainty among different models to some extent. (iv) There were differences in trends and PBIAS between the three reference datasets at both the global and basin scale. However, the interannual fluctuations of the three datasets were basically the same and have high correlation coefficient (except for ERA5 in the world and Nile basin), which shows that LORA dataset has high reliability. The global comprehensive rating metric (GR) of CMIP6_MMEs was better than CMIP5_MMEs in all metrics, but this result was not found in eight basins. This shows that CMIP6 models has better effect in simulating global runoff and related diagnostic indicators. Implying further improvements are needs for the runoff simulation capability at the basin scale.
引用
收藏
页码:1451 / 1470
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluation and comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 model performance in simulating the runoff
    Guo, Hai
    Zhan, Chesheng
    Ning, Like
    Li, Zhonghe
    Hu, Shi
    THEORETICAL AND APPLIED CLIMATOLOGY, 2022, 149 (3-4) : 1451 - 1470
  • [2] Comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 models in simulating climate extremes
    Chen, Huopo
    Sun, Jianqi
    Lin, Wenqing
    Xu, Huiwen
    SCIENCE BULLETIN, 2020, 65 (17) : 1415 - 1418
  • [3] Comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 models performance in simulating temperature in Northeast China
    He XiaMan
    Jiang Chao
    Wang Jun
    Wang XiangPing
    CHINESE JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICS-CHINESE EDITION, 2022, 65 (11): : 4194 - 4207
  • [4] Comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 model performance in simulating historical precipitation and temperature in Bangladesh: a preliminary study
    Kamruzzaman, Mohammad
    Shahid, Shamsuddin
    Islam, Arm Towfiqul
    Hwang, Syewoon
    Cho, Jaepil
    Zaman, Md Asad Uz
    Ahmed, Minhaz
    Rahman, Md Mizanur
    Hossain, Md Belal
    THEORETICAL AND APPLIED CLIMATOLOGY, 2021, 145 (3-4) : 1385 - 1406
  • [5] Comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 model performance in simulating historical precipitation and temperature in Bangladesh: a preliminary study
    Mohammad Kamruzzaman
    Shamsuddin Shahid
    ARM Towfiqul Islam
    Syewoon Hwang
    Jaepil Cho
    Md. Asad Uz Zaman
    Minhaz Ahmed
    Md. Mizanur Rahman
    Md. Belal Hossain
    Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 2021, 145 : 1385 - 1406
  • [6] Climate Model Projections for Canada: A Comparison of CMIP5 and CMIP6
    Sobie, S. R.
    Zwiers, F. W.
    Curry, C. L.
    ATMOSPHERE-OCEAN, 2021, 59 (4-5) : 269 - 284
  • [7] Evaluation and comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 model performance in simulating the seasonal extreme precipitation in the Western North Pacific and East Asia
    Chen, Chao-An
    Hsu, Huang-Hsiung
    Liang, Hsin-Chien
    WEATHER AND CLIMATE EXTREMES, 2021, 31
  • [8] Relative performance of CMIP5 and CMIP6 models in simulating rainfall in Peninsular Malaysia
    Sahar Hadi Pour
    Shamsuddin Shahid
    Mohammed Mainuddin
    Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 2022, 149 : 709 - 725
  • [9] Relative performance of CMIP5 and CMIP6 models in simulating rainfall in Peninsular Malaysia
    Pour, Sahar Hadi
    Shahid, Shamsuddin
    Mainuddin, Mohammed
    THEORETICAL AND APPLIED CLIMATOLOGY, 2022, 149 (1-2) : 709 - 725
  • [10] Evaluation of the Performance of CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models in Simulating the Victoria Mode-El Nino Relationship
    Wang, Zhenchao
    Han, Lin
    Zheng, Jiayu
    Ding, Ruiqiang
    Li, Jianping
    Hou, Zhaolu
    Chao, Jinghua
    JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, 2021, 34 (18) : 7625 - 7644