4.7 Article

Global assessment of agreement among streamflow projections using CMIP5 model outputs

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064017

关键词

streamflow; climate change; CMIP5; uncertainty; agreement; low flow; high flow

资金

  1. Funding Program for next generation world-leading researchers, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, CREST of Japan Science and Technology Agency
  2. Environmental Research and Technology Development Fund of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan [S-10]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Runoff outputs from 11 atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs) participating in the fifth phase of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project were used to evaluate the changes in streamflow and agreement among AOGCMs at the end of 21st century. Under the highest emission scenario (Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) 8.5), high flow is projected to increase in northern high latitudes of Eurasia and North America, Asia, and eastern Africa, while mean and low flows are both projected to decrease in Europe, Middle East, southwestern United States, and Central America. Projected changes under RCP4.5 show similar spatial distribution but with lower magnitude. The model spread of projected changes, however, is found to be large under both scenarios. Bootstrapped Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon U test revealed that projected changes of streamflow regimes are statistically not significant in 8-32% (19-59%) of the world under RCP8.5 (RCP4.5). The model agreement on projected increase or decrease in mean and high flows is stronger under RCP8.5 than that under RCP4.5. On the other hand, the projected changes in low flow are robust in both scenarios with strong model agreement. In similar to 7% (4%) of the world, high flow is projected to increase and low flow is projected to decrease, whereas in similar to 29% (13%) all mean, high, and low flows are projected to increase under RCP8.5 (RCP4.5).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据