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
  • [31] Evaluation of the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave Simulated by CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models
    Lu, Zhichao
    Zhao, Tianbao
    Zhou, Weican
    ATMOSPHERE, 2020, 11 (09)
  • [32] Evaluation of CMIP6 for historical temperature and precipitation over the Tibetan Plateau and its comparison with CMIP5
    Zhu Yu-Yao
    Yang Saini
    ADVANCES IN CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH, 2020, 11 (03) : 239 - 251
  • [33] Blocking Simulations in GFDL GCMs for CMIP5 and CMIP6
    Liu, Ping
    Reed, Kevin A.
    Garner, Stephen T.
    Zhao, Ming
    Zhu, Yuejian
    JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, 2022, 35 (15) : 5053 - 5070
  • [34] Contributions to Polar Amplification in CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models
    Hahn, L. C.
    Armour, K. C.
    Zelinka, M. D.
    Bitz, C. M.
    Donohoe, A.
    FRONTIERS IN EARTH SCIENCE, 2021, 9
  • [35] Assessment of surface downward longwave radiation in CMIP6 with comparison to observations and CMIP5
    Xu, Jiawen
    Zhang, Xiaotong
    Zhang, Weiyu
    Hou, Ning
    Feng, Chunjie
    Yang, Shuyue
    Jia, Kun
    Yao, Yunjun
    Xie, Xianhong
    Jiang, Bo
    Cheng, Jie
    Zhao, Xiang
    Liang, Shunlin
    ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, 2022, 270
  • [36] Comprehensive assessment of CMIP5 and CMIP6 models in simulating and projecting precipitation over the global land
    Du, Yi
    Wang, Dagang
    Zhu, Jinxin
    Wang, Dayang
    Qi, Xiaoxing
    Cai, Jingheng
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, 2022, 42 (13) : 6859 - 6875
  • [37] Projections of Greenland climate change from CMIP5 and CMIP6
    Zhang, Qinglin
    Huai, Baojuan
    Ding, Minghu
    Sun, Weijun
    Liu, Weigang
    Yan, Jinpei
    Zhao, Shuhui
    Wang, Yetang
    Wang, Yuzhe
    Wang, Lei
    Che, Jiahang
    Dou, Jiahui
    Kang, Limin
    GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE, 2024, 232
  • [38] Added value of CMIP6 over CMIP5 models in simulating Indian summer monsoon rainfall
    Gusain, A.
    Ghosh, S.
    Karmakar, S.
    ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, 2020, 232
  • [39] Simulations of ENSO Phase-Locking in CMIP5 and CMIP6
    Chen, Han-Ching
    Jin, Fei-Fei
    JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, 2021, 34 (12) : 5135 - 5149
  • [40] On the spring stratospheric final warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models
    Hu, Jinggao
    Liu, Zexuan
    Xu, Haiming
    Ren, Rongcai
    Jin, Dachao
    SCIENCE CHINA-EARTH SCIENCES, 2023, 66 (01) : 129 - 145