ALBERT

Description: The Land Surface, Snow and Soil Moisture Model Intercomparison Project (LS3MIP) is designed to provide a comprehensive assessment of land surface, snow, and soil moisture feedbacks on climate variability and climate change, and to diagnose systematic biases in the land modules of current Earth System Models (ESMs). The solid and liquid water stored at the land surface has a large influence on the regional climate, its variability and predictability, including effects on the energy, water and carbon cycles. Notably, snow and soil moisture affect surface radiation and flux partitioning properties, moisture storage and land surface memory. They both strongly affect atmospheric conditions, in particular surface air temperature and precipitation, but also large-scale circulation patterns. However, models show divergent responses and representations of these feedbacks as well as systematic biases in the underlying processes. LS3MIP will provide the means to quantify the associated uncertainties and better constrain climate change projections, which is of particular interest for highly vulnerable regions (densely populated areas, agricultural regions, the Arctic, semi-arid and other sensitive terrestrial ecosystems).The experiments are subdivided in two components, the first addressing systematic land biases in offline mode (LMIP, building upon the 3rd phase of Global Soil Wetness Project; GSWP3) and the second addressing land feedbacks attributed to soil moisture and snow in an integrated framework (LFMIP, building upon the GLACE-CMIP blueprint).

Description: The impacts of global climate change on different aspects of humanity's diverse life-support systems are complex and often difficult to predict. To facilitate policy decisions on mitigation and adaptation strategies, it is necessary to understand, quantify, and synthesize these climate-change impacts, taking into account their uncertainties. Crucial to these decisions is an understanding of how impacts in different sectors overlap, as overlapping impacts increase exposure, lead to interactions of impacts, and are likely to raise adaptation pressure. As a first step we develop herein a framework to study coinciding impacts and identify regional exposure hotspots. This framework can then be used as a starting point for regional case studies on vulnerability and multifaceted adaptation strategies. We consider impacts related to water, agriculture, ecosystems, and malaria at different levels of global warming. Multisectoral overlap starts to be seen robustly at a mean global warming of 3 degC above the 1980-2010 mean, with 11% of the world population subject to severe impacts in at least two of the four impact sectors at 4 degC. Despite these general conclusions, we find that uncertainty arising from the impact models is considerable, and larger than that from the climate models. In a low probability-high impact worst-case assessment, almost the whole inhabited world is at risk for multisectoral pressures. Hence, there is a pressing need for an increased research effort to develop a more comprehensive understanding of impacts, as well as for the development of policy measures under existing uncertainty.

Description: As earth system models (ESMs) become increasingly complex, there is a growing need for comprehensive and multi-faceted evaluation of model projections. To advance understanding of terrestrial biogeochemical processes and their interactions with hydrology and climate under conditions of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, new analysis methods are required that use observations to constrain model predictions, inform model development, and identify needed measurements and field experiments. Better representations of biogeochemistryclimate feedbacks and ecosystem processes in these models are essential for reducing the acknowledged substantial uncertainties in 21st century climate change projections.

Description: Global hydrological models (GHMs) have been applied to assess global flood hazards, but their capacity to capture the timing and amplitude of peak river discharge which is crucial in flood simulations has traditionally not been the focus of examination. Here we evaluate to what degree the choice of river routing scheme affects simulations of peak discharge and may help to provide better agreement with observations. To this end we use runoff and discharge simulations of nine GHMs forced by observational climate data (1971-2010) within the ISIMIP2a (Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project phase 2a) project. The runoff simulations were used as input for the global river routing model CaMa-Flood (Catchment-based Macro-scale Floodplain). The simulated daily discharge was compared to the discharge generated by each GHM using its native river routing scheme. For each GHM both versions of simulated discharge were compared to monthly and daily discharge observations from 1701 GRDC (Global Runoff Data Centre) stations as a benchmark. CaMa-Flood routing shows a general reduction of peak river discharge and a delay of about two to three weeks in its occurrence, likely induced by the buffering capacity of floodplain reservoirs. For a majority of river basins, discharge produced by CaMa-Flood resulted in a better agreement with observations. In particular, maximum daily discharge was adjusted, with a multi-model averaged reduction in bias over about two-thirds of the analysed basin area. The increase in agreement was obtained in both managed and near-natural basins. Overall, this study demonstrates the importance of routing scheme choice in peak discharge simulation, where CaMa-Flood routing accounts for floodplain storage and backwater effects that are not represented in most GHMs. Our study provides important hints that an explicit parameterisation of these processes may be essential in future impact studies.