Performance evaluations of CMIP6 and CMIP5 models for precipitation simulation over the Hanjiang River Basin, China

被引:7
|
作者
Wang, Dong [1 ,2 ]
Liu, Jiahong [2 ]
Wang, Hao [1 ,2 ]
Shao, Weiwei [2 ]
Mei, Chao [2 ]
Ding, Xiangyi [2 ]
机构
[1] Jilin Univ, Coll New Energy & Environm, Changchun 130021, Jilin, Peoples R China
[2] China Inst Water Resources & Hydropower Res, State Key Lab Simulat & Regulat Water Cycle River, Beijing 100038, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
CMIP5; CMIP6; GCM; Hanjiang River Basin; precipitation simulation performance; SUMMER MONSOON; CLIMATE-CHANGE; TEMPERATURE; MANAGEMENT; SYSTEM; REGION;
D O I
10.2166/wcc.2022.402
中图分类号
TV21 [水资源调查与水利规划];
学科分类号
081501 ;
摘要
Projecting the climate change impacts on the hydrology and water resources relies on the climate scenarios simulated by general circulation models (GCMs), which requires a systematic and comprehensive assessment of the GCMs' simulation performances at a regional scale. This study evaluates the performances of precipitation simulation over the Hanjiang River Basin (HRB) by six climate models from the Phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), the corresponding six previous models from the CMIP5, and their multi-model ensemble (MME) based on the observational data in the CN05.1. To our knowledge, this is the first preliminary study in the HRB. The Taylor diagram (including standard deviation, root-mean-square difference, and correlation coefficient) and Taylor skill score are used for the evaluation of GCMs' precipitation simulation performances. The spatial pattern and temporal pattern over the HRB simulated by CMIP6 and CMIP5 models are compared by relative biases. The results of the Taylor diagram and skill score show that CMIP6 models don't necessarily perform better than the corresponding previous CMIP5 models in simulating precipitation over the HRB. The MME exhibits superior performance than that of any individual model, and the CMIP6-MME is more skillful than the CMIP5-MME. As to the spatial and temporal variation characteristics, the precipitation biases are both present in CMIP6 and CMIP5 models, and the bias of the CMIP6-MME is lower than that of the CMIP5-MME. The CMIP6 and CMIP5 models overestimate the precipitation from January to June, and simulate larger precipitation biases in the areas and seasons with less precipitation, while lower with more precipitation over the HRB. The findings obtained in this study could provide a scientific reference for the research of future hydrological cycle predictions over the HRB.
引用
收藏
页码:2089 / 2106
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of CMIP5 and CMIP6 models for temperature and precipitation simulation over the Yarlung Tsangpo-Brahmaputra River Basin
    Chen, Linyan
    Ji, Xuan
    Xu, Zhangchao
    Qin, Peng
    Yang, Chuangjian
    Yan, Siyi
    Sun, Cezong
    Zheng, Yangfan
    Zhang, Yuanping
    [J]. JOURNAL OF WATER AND CLIMATE CHANGE, 2024, 15 (08) : 3450 - 3471
  • [2] Added value of CMIP6 models over CMIP5 models in simulating the climatological precipitation extremes in China
    Luo, Neng
    Guo, Yan
    Chou, Jieming
    Gao, Zhibo
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, 2022, 42 (02) : 1148 - 1164
  • [3] Comparison of precipitation projections of CMIP5 and CMIP6 global climate models over Yulin, China
    Shiru, Mohammed Sanusi
    Chung, Eun-Sung
    Shahid, Shamsuddin
    Wang, Xiao-jun
    [J]. THEORETICAL AND APPLIED CLIMATOLOGY, 2022, 147 (1-2) : 535 - 548
  • [4] Comparison of precipitation projections of CMIP5 and CMIP6 global climate models over Yulin, China
    Mohammed Sanusi Shiru
    Eun-Sung Chung
    Shamsuddin Shahid
    Xiao-jun Wang
    [J]. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 2022, 147 : 535 - 548
  • [5] PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CMIP5 MODELS FOR PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE OVER HAIHE RIVER BASIN, CHINA
    Yang, Hao
    Chen, Xiaofeng
    Feng, Ying
    Jiao, Wei
    Yan, Tiezhu
    [J]. FRESENIUS ENVIRONMENTAL BULLETIN, 2021, 30 (05): : 5002 - 5014
  • [6] Comparison of CMIP5 and CMIP6 Multi-Model Ensemble for Precipitation Downscaling Results and Observational Data: The Case of Hanjiang River Basin
    Wang, Dong
    Liu, Jiahong
    Shao, Weiwei
    Mei, Chao
    Su, Xin
    Wang, Hao
    [J]. ATMOSPHERE, 2021, 12 (07)
  • [7] A comparative assessment of CMIP5 and CMIP6 in hydrological responses of the Yellow River Basin, China
    Guo, Yuxue
    Yu, Xinting
    Xu, Yue-Ping
    Wang, Guoqing
    Xie, Jingkai
    Gu, Haiting
    [J]. HYDROLOGY RESEARCH, 2022, 53 (06): : 867 - 891
  • [8] Assessment of GCMs simulation performance for precipitation and temperature from CMIP5 to CMIP6 over the Tibetan Plateau
    Lun, Yurui
    Liu, Liu
    Cheng, Lei
    Li, Xiuping
    Li, Hao
    Xu, Zongxue
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, 2021, 41 (07) : 3994 - 4018
  • [9] Comparison of CMIP6 and CMIP5 models performance in simulating temperature in Northeast China
    He XiaMan
    Jiang Chao
    Wang Jun
    Wang XiangPing
    [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICS-CHINESE EDITION, 2022, 65 (11): : 4194 - 4207
  • [10] 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
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY-REGIONAL STUDIES, 2022, 40