CMIP6模式能否准确再现中国陆地蒸散量?

IF 3.5 3区 地球科学 Q2 METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
Hui Shen, Jianduo Li, Guocan Wu, Aizhong Ye, Yuna Mao
{"title":"CMIP6模式能否准确再现中国陆地蒸散量?","authors":"Hui Shen,&nbsp;Jianduo Li,&nbsp;Guocan Wu,&nbsp;Aizhong Ye,&nbsp;Yuna Mao","doi":"10.1002/joc.8794","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Terrestrial evapotranspiration (ET) plays a fundamental role in the climate system. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) provides a valuable framework for assessing global climate model performance, but gaps remain in evaluating its ET estimates, particularly in China. To fill this gap, we employed the Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model (GLEAM) and the water balance ET method to validate the CMIP6 ET outputs from 1980 to 2014 at both national and river basin scales. Key findings include: (1) GLEAM ET performs comparably to the water balance method, making it reliable for validating CMIP6 ET outputs. From 1980 to 2014, the annual mean ET in GLEAM for China ranges from 355 to 411 mm/year. In contrast, most CMIP6 models overestimate ET, with the multi-model ensemble (MME) mean ranging from 524 to 542 mm/year, showing considerable variation among models. Spatially, the MME overestimates ET across over 90% of China. Bayesian model averaging (BMA) results align closely with reference data, with overestimation concentrated in southwest China. (2) At the national scale, CMIP6 trends range from −0.36 to 0.58 mm/year<sup>2</sup>, which contrasts sharply with the GLEAM trend of 1.27 mm/year<sup>2</sup>. At the basin scale, most models overestimate annual ET compared to GLEAM, with discrepancies particularly evident in the major river basins. The smallest difference in ET trend simulation occurs in the Northwest River basin, where model distributions are more concentrated, while the largest discrepancies appear in the Pearl River basin, where model performance is more scattered. Furthermore, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) analysis reveals high ensemble consistency in regions such as the Haihe, Yellow, Yangtze, Pearl and Songliao River basins, indicating more reliable model performance in these areas. This study contributes to enhancing the reliability and accuracy of climate projections, which is essential for informed decision-making and policy formulation in atmospheric science.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":13779,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Climatology","volume":"45 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can CMIP6 Models Accurately Reproduce Terrestrial Evapotranspiration Across China?\",\"authors\":\"Hui Shen,&nbsp;Jianduo Li,&nbsp;Guocan Wu,&nbsp;Aizhong Ye,&nbsp;Yuna Mao\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/joc.8794\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Terrestrial evapotranspiration (ET) plays a fundamental role in the climate system. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) provides a valuable framework for assessing global climate model performance, but gaps remain in evaluating its ET estimates, particularly in China. To fill this gap, we employed the Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model (GLEAM) and the water balance ET method to validate the CMIP6 ET outputs from 1980 to 2014 at both national and river basin scales. Key findings include: (1) GLEAM ET performs comparably to the water balance method, making it reliable for validating CMIP6 ET outputs. From 1980 to 2014, the annual mean ET in GLEAM for China ranges from 355 to 411 mm/year. In contrast, most CMIP6 models overestimate ET, with the multi-model ensemble (MME) mean ranging from 524 to 542 mm/year, showing considerable variation among models. Spatially, the MME overestimates ET across over 90% of China. Bayesian model averaging (BMA) results align closely with reference data, with overestimation concentrated in southwest China. (2) At the national scale, CMIP6 trends range from −0.36 to 0.58 mm/year<sup>2</sup>, which contrasts sharply with the GLEAM trend of 1.27 mm/year<sup>2</sup>. At the basin scale, most models overestimate annual ET compared to GLEAM, with discrepancies particularly evident in the major river basins. The smallest difference in ET trend simulation occurs in the Northwest River basin, where model distributions are more concentrated, while the largest discrepancies appear in the Pearl River basin, where model performance is more scattered. Furthermore, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) analysis reveals high ensemble consistency in regions such as the Haihe, Yellow, Yangtze, Pearl and Songliao River basins, indicating more reliable model performance in these areas. This study contributes to enhancing the reliability and accuracy of climate projections, which is essential for informed decision-making and policy formulation in atmospheric science.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13779,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Climatology\",\"volume\":\"45 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Climatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.8794\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Climatology","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.8794","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

陆地蒸散发(ET)在气候系统中起着重要的作用。耦合模式比对项目第6阶段(CMIP6)为评估全球气候模式的性能提供了一个有价值的框架,但在评估其ET估算方面仍存在差距,特别是在中国。为了填补这一空白,我们利用全球土地蒸发阿姆斯特丹模型(GLEAM)和水平衡ET方法在国家和流域尺度上验证了1980 - 2014年CMIP6的ET输出。主要发现包括:(1)GLEAM ET与水平衡法的表现相当,使其能够可靠地验证CMIP6 ET输出。1980 ~ 2014年,中国GLEAM的年平均ET在355 ~ 411 mm/年之间。相比之下,大多数CMIP6模式高估了ET,多模式集合(MME)平均值在524 ~ 542 mm/年之间,模式间差异较大。在空间上,MME高估了中国90%以上地区的ET。贝叶斯模型平均(BMA)结果与参考数据基本一致,过高估计集中在中国西南地区。(2)在国家尺度上,CMIP6变化趋势为- 0.36 ~ 0.58 mm/year2,与GLEAM变化趋势1.27 mm/year2形成鲜明对比。在流域尺度上,与GLEAM相比,大多数模式高估了年蒸散发,在主要流域中差异尤其明显。蒸散发趋势模拟差异最小的是西北河流域,模型分布较为集中;差异最大的是珠江流域,模型表现较为分散。此外,信噪比分析显示,海河、黄河、长江、珠江和松辽河流域的集合一致性较高,表明模型在这些地区的表现更为可靠。该研究有助于提高气候预估的可靠性和准确性,这对大气科学的知情决策和政策制定至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Can CMIP6 Models Accurately Reproduce Terrestrial Evapotranspiration Across China?

Can CMIP6 Models Accurately Reproduce Terrestrial Evapotranspiration Across China?

Terrestrial evapotranspiration (ET) plays a fundamental role in the climate system. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) provides a valuable framework for assessing global climate model performance, but gaps remain in evaluating its ET estimates, particularly in China. To fill this gap, we employed the Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model (GLEAM) and the water balance ET method to validate the CMIP6 ET outputs from 1980 to 2014 at both national and river basin scales. Key findings include: (1) GLEAM ET performs comparably to the water balance method, making it reliable for validating CMIP6 ET outputs. From 1980 to 2014, the annual mean ET in GLEAM for China ranges from 355 to 411 mm/year. In contrast, most CMIP6 models overestimate ET, with the multi-model ensemble (MME) mean ranging from 524 to 542 mm/year, showing considerable variation among models. Spatially, the MME overestimates ET across over 90% of China. Bayesian model averaging (BMA) results align closely with reference data, with overestimation concentrated in southwest China. (2) At the national scale, CMIP6 trends range from −0.36 to 0.58 mm/year2, which contrasts sharply with the GLEAM trend of 1.27 mm/year2. At the basin scale, most models overestimate annual ET compared to GLEAM, with discrepancies particularly evident in the major river basins. The smallest difference in ET trend simulation occurs in the Northwest River basin, where model distributions are more concentrated, while the largest discrepancies appear in the Pearl River basin, where model performance is more scattered. Furthermore, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) analysis reveals high ensemble consistency in regions such as the Haihe, Yellow, Yangtze, Pearl and Songliao River basins, indicating more reliable model performance in these areas. This study contributes to enhancing the reliability and accuracy of climate projections, which is essential for informed decision-making and policy formulation in atmospheric science.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Climatology
International Journal of Climatology 地学-气象与大气科学
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
417
审稿时长
4 months
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Climatology aims to span the well established but rapidly growing field of climatology, through the publication of research papers, short communications, major reviews of progress and reviews of new books and reports in the area of climate science. The Journal’s main role is to stimulate and report research in climatology, from the expansive fields of the atmospheric, biophysical, engineering and social sciences. Coverage includes: Climate system science; Local to global scale climate observations and modelling; Seasonal to interannual climate prediction; Climatic variability and climate change; Synoptic, dynamic and urban climatology, hydroclimatology, human bioclimatology, ecoclimatology, dendroclimatology, palaeoclimatology, marine climatology and atmosphere-ocean interactions; Application of climatological knowledge to environmental assessment and management and economic production; Climate and society interactions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信