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
  • [21] Recent progress in simulating two types of ENSO - from CMIP5 to CMIP6
    Hou, Meiyi
    Tang, Youmin
    FRONTIERS IN MARINE SCIENCE, 2022, 9
  • [22] Hydrological Projections under CMIP5 and CMIP6
    Wu, Yi
    Miao, Chiyuan
    Slater, Louise
    Fan, Xuewei
    Chai, Yuanfang
    Sorooshian, Soroosh
    BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, 2024, 105 (01) : E2374 - E2389
  • [23] CMIP5 SCIENTIFIC GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CMIP6
    Stouffer, R. J.
    Eyring, V.
    Meehl, G. A.
    Bony, S.
    Senior, C.
    Stevens, B.
    Taylor, K. E.
    BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, 2017, 98 (01) : 95 - +
  • [24] Performance Evaluation of CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models on Heatwaves in Korea and Associated Teleconnection Patterns
    Kim, Maeng-Ki
    Yu, Dae-Geun
    Oh, Ji-Seon
    Byun, Young-Hwa
    Boo, Kyung-On
    Chung, Il-Ung
    Park, Jeong-Soo
    Park, Doo-Sun R.
    Min, Seung-Ki
    Sung, Hyun Min
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2020, 125 (23)
  • [25] Comparison of CMIP5 and CMIP6 GCM performance for flood projections in the Mekong River Basin
    Try, Sophal
    Tanaka, Shigenobu
    Tanaka, Kenji
    Sayama, Takahiro
    Khujanazarov, Temur
    Oeurng, Chantha
    JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY-REGIONAL STUDIES, 2022, 40
  • [26] CMIP5 and CMIP6 Model Projection Comparison for Hydrological Impacts Over North America
    Martel, J-L
    Brissette, F.
    Troin, M.
    Arsenault, R.
    Chen, J.
    Su, T.
    Lucas-Picher, P.
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2022, 49 (15)
  • [27] Assessment of Sea Ice Extent in CMIP6 With Comparison to Observations and CMIP5
    Shu, Qi
    Wang, Qiang
    Song, Zhenya
    Qiao, Fangli
    Zhao, Jiechen
    Chu, Min
    Li, Xinfang
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2020, 47 (09)
  • [28] Evaluating Diurnal Rainfall Signal Performance from CMIP5 to CMIP6
    Lee, Yu-Chi
    Wang, Yi-Chi
    JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, 2021, 34 (18) : 7607 - 7623
  • [29] An evaluation of CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate models in simulating summer rainfall in the Southeast Asian monsoon domain
    Khadka, Dibesh
    Babel, Mukand S.
    Abatan, Abayomi A.
    Collins, Matthew
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, 2022, 42 (02) : 1181 - 1202
  • [30] Comparison of Indian Ocean warming simulated by CMIP5 and CMIP6 models
    Li Jingyi
    Su Jingzhi
    ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC SCIENCE LETTERS, 2020, 13 (06) : 604 - 611