Votre recherche

Abstract The effect of large-scale irrigation in India on the moisture budget of the atmosphere was investigated using three regional climate models and one global climate model, all of which performed an irrigated run and a natural run without irrigation. Using a common irrigation map, year-round irrigation was represented by adding water to the soil moisture to keep it at 90% of the maximum soil moisture storage capacity, regardless of water availability. For two focus regions, the seasonal cycle of irrigation matched that of the reference dataset, but irrigation application varied between the models by up to 0.8 mm day−1. Because of the irrigation, evaporation increased in all models, but precipitation decreased because of a strong decrease in atmospheric moisture convergence. A moisture tracking scheme was used to track individual evaporated moisture parcels through the atmosphere to determine where these lead to precipitation. Up to 35% of the evaporation moisture from the Ganges basin is recycling within the river basin. However, because of a decreased moisture convergence into the river basin, the total amount of precipitation in the Ganges basin decreases. Although a significant fraction of the evaporation moisture recycles within the river basin, the changes in large-scale wind patterns due to irrigation shift the precipitation from the eastern parts of India and Nepal to the northern and western parts of India and Pakistan. In these areas where precipitation increases, the relative precipitation increase is larger than the relative decrease in the areas where precipitation decreases. It is concluded 1) that the direct effects of irrigation on precipitation are small and are not uniform across the models; 2) that a fraction of up to 35% of any marginal evaporation increase (for example, due to irrigation) will recycle within the river basin; and 3) that when irrigation is applied on a large scale, the dominant effect will be a change in large-scale atmospheric flow that decreases precipitation in eastern India and increases it in western and northern India.

Abstract A warmer climate impacts streamflows and these changes need to be quantified to assess future risk, vulnerability, and to implement efficient adaptation measures. The climate simulations from the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), which have been the basis of most such assessments over the past decade, are being gradually superseded by the more recent Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). Our study portrays the added value of the CMIP6 ensemble over CMIP5 in a first North America wide comparison using 3,107 catchments. Results show a reduced spread of the CMIP6 ensemble compared to the CMIP5 ensemble for temperature and precipitation projections. In terms of flow indicators, the CMIP6 driven hydrological projections result in a smaller spread of future mean and high flow values, except for mountainous areas. Overall, we assess that the CMIP6 ensemble provides a narrower band of uncertainty of future climate projections, bringing more confidence for hydrological impact studies. , Plain Language Summary Greenhouse gas emissions are causing the climate to warm significantly, which in turn impacts flows in rivers worldwide. To adapt to these changes, it is essential to quantify them and assess future risk and vulnerability. Climate models are the primary tools used to achieve this. The main data set that provides scientists with state‐of‐the‐art climate model simulations is known as the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). The fifth phase of that project (CMIP5) has been used over the past decade in multiple hydrological studies to assess the impacts of climate change on streamflow. The more recent sixth phase (CMIP6) has started to generate projections, which brings the following question: is it necessary to update the hydrological impact studies performed using CMIP5 with the new CMIP6 models? To answer this question, a comparison between CMIP5 and CMIP6 using 3,107 catchments over North America was conducted. Results show that there is less spread in temperature and precipitation projections for CMIP6. This translates into a smaller spread of future mean, high and low flow values, except for mountainous areas. Overall, we assess that using the CMIP6 data set would provide a more concerted range of future climate projections, leading to more confident hydrological impact studies. , Key Points A comparison of hydrological impacts using Coupled Model Intercomparison Project version 5 (CMIP5) and Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) ensembles is performed over 3,107 catchments in North America The CMIP6 ensembles provide a narrower band of uncertainty for hydrological indicators in the future It is recommended to update hydrological impact studies performed using CMIP5 with the CMIP6 ensemble

Abstract Model simulations of the Greenland ice sheet contribution to 21st-century sea-level rise are performed with a state-of-the-art ice-sheet model (Parallel Ice Sheet Model (PISM)). The climate-forcing fields are obtained from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme project ice2sea, in which three regional climate models are used to dynamically downscale two scenarios (A1B and E1) from two general circulation models (ECHAM5 and HadCM3). To assess the sensitivity of the projections to the model initial state, four initialization methods are applied. In these experiments, the simulated contribution to sea-level rise by 2100 ranges from an equivalent of 0.2 to 6.8 cm. The largest uncertainties arise from different formulations of the regional climate models (0.8–3.9 cm) and applied scenarios (0.65–1.9 cm), but an important source of uncertainty is the initialization method (0.1–0.8 cm). These model simulations do not account for the recently observed acceleration of ice streams and consequent thinning rates, the changing ice discharge that may result from the spatial and temporal variability of ocean forcing, or the feedback occurring between ice-sheet elevation changes and climate forcing. Thus the results should be considered the lower limit of Greenland ice sheet contributions to sea-level rise, until such processes have been integrated into large-scale ice-sheet models.

Abstract. ICESat has provided surface elevation measurements of the ice sheets since the launch in January 2003, resulting in a unique dataset for monitoring the changes of the cryosphere. Here, we present a novel method for determining the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet, derived from ICESat altimetry data. Three different methods for deriving elevation changes from the ICESat altimetry dataset are used. This multi-method approach provides a method to assess the complexity of deriving elevation changes from this dataset. The altimetry alone can not provide an estimate of the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet. Firn dynamics and surface densities are important factors that contribute to the mass change derived from remote-sensing altimetry. The volume change derived from ICESat data is corrected for changes in firn compaction over the observation period, vertical bedrock movement and an intercampaign elevation bias in the ICESat data. Subsequently, the corrected volume change is converted into mass change by the application of a simple surface density model, in which some of the ice dynamics are accounted for. The firn compaction and density models are driven by the HIRHAM5 regional climate model, forced by the ERA-Interim re-analysis product, at the lateral boundaries. We find annual mass loss estimates of the Greenland ice sheet in the range of 191 ± 23 Gt yr−1 to 240 ± 28 Gt yr−1 for the period October 2003 to March 2008. These results are in good agreement with several other studies of the Greenland ice sheet mass balance, based on different remote-sensing techniques.

Abstract. Four high-resolution regional climate models (RCMs) have been set up for the area of Greenland, with the aim of providing future projections of Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance (SMB), and its contribution to sea level rise, with greater accuracy than is possible from coarser-resolution general circulation models (GCMs). This is the first time an intercomparison has been carried out of RCM results for Greenland climate and SMB. Output from RCM simulations for the recent past with the four RCMs is evaluated against available observations. The evaluation highlights the importance of using a detailed snow physics scheme, especially regarding the representations of albedo and meltwater refreezing. Simulations with three of the RCMs for the 21st century using SRES scenario A1B from two GCMs produce trends of between −5.5 and −1.1 Gt yr−2 in SMB (equivalent to +0.015 and +0.003 mm sea level equivalent yr−2), with trends of smaller magnitude for scenario E1, in which emissions are mitigated. Results from one of the RCMs whose present-day simulation is most realistic indicate that an annual mean near-surface air temperature increase over Greenland of ~ 2°C would be required for the mass loss to increase such that it exceeds accumulation, thereby causing the SMB to become negative, which has been suggested as a threshold beyond which the ice sheet would eventually be eliminated.