Multimodel estimate of the global terrestrial water balance: setup and first results

Haddeland, Ingjerd; Clark, Douglas B. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1348-7922; Franssen, Wietse; Ludwig, Fulco; Voß, Frank; Arnell, Nigel W.; Bertrand, Nathalie; Best, Martin; Folwell, Sonja; Gerten, Dieter; Gomes, Sandra; Gosling, Simon N.; Hagemann, Stefan; Hanasaki, Naota; Harding, Richard; Heinke, Jens; Kabat, Pavel; Koirala, Sujan; Oki, Taikan; Polcher, Jan; Stacke, Tobias; Viterbo, Pedro; Weedon, Graham P.; Yeh, Pat. 2011 Multimodel estimate of the global terrestrial water balance: setup and first results. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 12 (5). 869-884. 10.1175/2011JHM1324.1

Full text not available from this repository.

Official URL: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JH...

Abstract/Summary

Six land surface models and five global hydrological models participate in a model intercomparison project [Water Model Intercomparison Project (WaterMIP)], which for the first time compares simulation results of these different classes of models in a consistent way. In this paper, the simulation setup is described and aspects of the multimodel global terrestrial water balance are presented. All models were run at 0.5° spatial resolution for the global land areas for a 15-yr period (1985–99) using a newly developed global meteorological dataset. Simulated global terrestrial evapotranspiration, excluding Greenland and Antarctica, ranges from 415 to 586 mm yr−1 (from 60 000 to 85 000 km3 yr−1), and simulated runoff ranges from 290 to 457 mm yr−1 (from 42 000 to 66 000 km3 yr−1). Both the mean and median runoff fractions for the land surface models are lower than those of the global hydrological models, although the range is wider. Significant simulation differences between land surface and global hydrological models are found to be caused by the snow scheme employed. The physically based energy balance approach used by land surface models generally results in lower snow water equivalent values than the conceptual degree-day approach used by global hydrological models. Some differences in simulated runoff and evapotranspiration are explained by model parameterizations, although the processes included and parameterizations used are not distinct to either land surface models or global hydrological models. The results show that differences between models are a major source of uncertainty. Climate change impact studies thus need to use not only multiple climate models but also some other measure of uncertainty (e.g., multiple impact models).

Item Type:	Publication - Article
Digital Object Identifier (DOI):	10.1175/2011JHM1324.1
Programmes:	CEH Topics & Objectives 2009 - 2012 > Water > WA Topic 3 - Science for Water Management > WA - 3.3 - Better represent hydrological and biogeochemical processes in Earth System Models
UKCEH and CEH Sections/Science Areas:	Reynard Boorman (to September 2014)
ISSN:	1525-755X
Additional Keywords:	water budget, land surface model, hydrologic models
NORA Subject Terms:	Hydrology
Date made live:	20 Oct 2011 10:12 +0 (UTC)
URI:	https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/9951

Item Type:

Publication - Article

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

10.1175/2011JHM1324.1

Programmes:

CEH Topics & Objectives 2009 - 2012 > Water > WA Topic 3 - Science for Water Management > WA - 3.3 - Better represent hydrological and biogeochemical processes in Earth System Models

UKCEH and CEH Sections/Science Areas:

Reynard
Boorman (to September 2014)

ISSN:

1525-755X

Additional Keywords:

water budget, land surface model, hydrologic models