Future Projections and Uncertainties of CMIP6 for Hydrological Indicators and Their Discrepancies from CMIP5 over South Korea

被引:8
|
作者
Van Doi, Manh [1 ]
Kim, Jongho [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ulsan, Sch Civil & Environm Engn, Ulsan 44610, South Korea
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
future projection; uncertainty quantification; uncertainty contribution; climatological mean; CMIP6; CMIP5; CLIMATE SYSTEM MODEL; INTERNAL VARIABILITY; BASIC EVALUATION; ENSEMBLE; VERSION; PRECIPITATION; PERFORMANCE; SCENARIOMIP; CHALLENGES; COMPONENTS;
D O I
10.3390/w14182926
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Future climate projections and their uncertainties affect many aspects of the world, so reliable assessments are essential for policymakers who need to prepare mitigation measures in the context of climate change. In this study, we examined the projected future climate and estimated uncertainty for South Korea using results from the global climate model (GCM), updated from the sixth phase of the coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP6); we then compared the differences in outcome between the fifth and sixth phases of the CMIP (CMIP5 and CMIP6). Future projections were estimated as the averaged climatological mean (denoted as (C) over barM) for the four proposed hydrological indicators. Model uncertainty (UEMI) and stochastic uncertainty (USTO) were quantified as the range of ensembles of the climatological mean, while the emission uncertainty (UEMI) was estimated as the difference between the CM values of two emission scenarios. The following are the key findings of our study: (1) using an ensemble of multiple GCMs is recommended over using individual GCMs, and models in CMIP6 performed better for reproducing climate during the control period than models in the CMIP5; (2) the (C) over barM values in the CMIP6 increased for future periods, especially toward the end of this century, increasing mean temperature (meanTa) by approximately 5 degrees C, total precipitation (totPr), and daily maximum precipitation (maxDa) by about 20%, and these values were higher than those of the CMIP5; (3) the UGCM, USTO, and UEMI values increased for future periods in most of the indices; (4) the UGCM (for meanTa, totPr, and maxDa) and USTO (for totPr and maxDa) magnitudes in the CMIP6 were higher than those in the CMIP5, while the UEMI values between the two CMIPs were similar for all of the indices; (5) the UGCM was the major source of the largest uncertainty for meanTa, the USTO had a significant impact on future projections of totPr and maxDa, especially in the summer, and the UEMI became the dominant source of uncertainty for projecting the future meanTa, especially in the period farthest from the present. These results should provide useful information for studies that quantify future climate-induced hydrological impacts.
引用
收藏
页数:26
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Evaluation and projections of surface air temperature over the Tibetan Plateau from CMIP6 and CMIP5: warming trend and uncertainty
    Zhou, Minpei
    Yu, Zhongbo
    Gu, Huanghe
    Ju, Qin
    Gao, Yiyan
    Wen, Lei
    Huang, Tangkai
    Wang, Wei
    CLIMATE DYNAMICS, 2023, 60 (11-12) : 3863 - 3883
  • [32] Future Sea Level Projections over the Seas Around Korea from CMIP5 Simulations
    Heo, Tae-Kyung
    Kim, Youngmi
    Boo, Kyung-On
    Byun, Young-Hwa
    Cho, Chunho
    ATMOSPHERE-KOREA, 2018, 28 (01): : 25 - 35
  • [33] Advances in CMIP6 INM-CM5 over CMIP5 INM-CM4 for precipitation simulation in South Korea
    Song, Young Hoon
    Nashwan, Mohamed Salem
    Chung, Eun-Sung
    Shahid, Shamsuddin
    ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, 2021, 247
  • [34] Exploring uncertainties in global crop yield projections in a large ensemble of crop models and CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate scenarios
    Mueller, Christoph
    Franke, James
    Jaegermeyr, Jonas
    Ruane, Alex C.
    Elliott, Joshua
    Moyer, Elisabeth
    Heinke, Jens
    Falloon, Pete D.
    Folberth, Christian
    Francois, Louis
    Hank, Tobias
    Izaurralde, R. Cesar
    Jacquemin, Ingrid
    Liu, Wenfeng
    Olin, Stefan
    Pugh, Thomas A. M.
    Williams, Karina
    Zabel, Florian
    ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2021, 16 (03):
  • [35] 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
    HYDROLOGY RESEARCH, 2022, 53 (06): : 867 - 891
  • [36] 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
  • [37] Future sea level projections over the seas around korea from cmip5 simulations
    Heo T.-K.
    Kim Y.
    Boo K.-O.
    Byun Y.-H.
    Cho C.
    Kim, Youngmi (kymi19@korea.kr), 2018, MDPI (28) : 25 - 35
  • [38] Exploring uncertainties in global crop yield projections in a large ensemble of crop models and CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate scenarios
    Müller, Christoph
    Franke, James
    Jägermeyr, Jonas
    Ruane, Alex C.
    Elliott, Joshua
    Moyer, Elisabeth
    Heinke, Jens
    Falloon, Pete D.
    Folberth, Christian
    Francois, Louis
    Hank, Tobias
    Izaurralde, R. César
    Jacquemin, Ingrid
    Liu, Wenfeng
    Olin, Stefan
    Pugh, Thomas A.M.
    Williams, Karina
    Zabel, Florian
    Environmental Research Letters, 2021, 16 (03):
  • [39] 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
  • [40] Future Changes in Wet and Dry Season Characteristics in CMIP5 and CMIP6 Simulations
    Wainwright, Caroline M.
    Black, Emily
    Allan, Richard P.
    JOURNAL OF HYDROMETEOROLOGY, 2021, 22 (09) : 2339 - 2357