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
  • [41] On the spring stratospheric final warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models
    Jinggao HU
    Zexuan LIU
    Haiming XU
    Rongcai REN
    Dachao JIN
    Science China(Earth Sciences), 2023, 66 (01) : 129 - 145
  • [42] On the spring stratospheric final warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models
    Jinggao Hu
    Zexuan Liu
    Haiming Xu
    Rongcai Ren
    Dachao Jin
    Science China Earth Sciences, 2023, 66 : 129 - 145
  • [43] The Mediterranean climate change hotspot in the CMIP5 and CMIP6 projections
    Cos, Josep
    Doblas-Reyes, Francisco
    Jury, Martin
    Marcos, Raul
    Bretonniere, Pierre-Antoine
    Samso, Margarida
    EARTH SYSTEM DYNAMICS, 2022, 13 (01) : 321 - 340
  • [44] Decomposing Temperature Extremes Errors in CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models
    Di Luca, Alejandro
    Pitman, Andrew J.
    de Elia, Ramon
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2020, 47 (14)
  • [45] A comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 projections for precipitation to observational data: the case of Northeastern Iran
    Yasin Zamani
    Seyed Arman Hashemi Monfared
    Mehdi Azhdari moghaddam
    Mohsen Hamidianpour
    Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 2020, 142 : 1613 - 1623
  • [46] Evaluation of seasonal teleconnections to remote drivers of Australian rainfall in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models
    Chung, Christine
    Boschat, Ghyslaine
    Taschetto, Andrea
    Narsey, Sugata
    McGregor, Shayne
    Santoso, Agus
    Delage, Francois
    JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE EARTH SYSTEMS SCIENCE, 2024, 74 (01):
  • [47] Comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 simulations of precipitation in China and the East Asian summer monsoon
    Xin, Xiaoge
    Wu, Tongwen
    Zhang, Jie
    Yao, Junchen
    Fang, Yongjie
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, 2020, 40 (15) : 6423 - 6440
  • [48] Evaluation of seasonal teleconnections to remote drivers of Australian rainfall in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models
    Chung, Christine
    Boschat, Ghyslaine
    Taschetto, Andrea
    Narsey, Sugata
    Mcgregor, Shayne
    Santoso, Agus
    Delage, Francois
    JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE EARTH SYSTEMS SCIENCE, 2023, 73 (03): : 219 - 261
  • [49] Evaluation of ENSO in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models and its significance in the rainfall in Northeast Thailand
    Yenushi K. De Silva
    Mukand S. Babel
    Abayomi A. Abatan
    Dibesh Khadka
    Jothiganesh Shanmugasundaram
    Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 2023, 154 : 881 - 906
  • [50] A comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 projections for precipitation to observational data: the case of Northeastern Iran
    Zamani, Yasin
    Hashemi Monfared, Seyed Arman
    Azhdari Moghaddam, Mehdi
    Hamidianpour, Mohsen
    THEORETICAL AND APPLIED CLIMATOLOGY, 2020, 142 (3-4) : 1613 - 1623