Sensitivity of inferred climate model skill to evaluation decisions: A case study using CMIP5 evapotranspiration

Environmental Research Letters

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2013, Pages

  Schwalm, Christopher R ^a   Huntinzger, Deborah N ^a,b   Michalak, Anna M ^c   Fisher, Joshua B ^d   Kimball, John S ^e   Mueller, Brigitte ^f   Zhang, Ke ^g   Zhang, Yongqiang ^h  

^a NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Center for Materials Interfaces in Research and Applications   (United States)

^c GEOPHYSICAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^d CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA   (United States)

^f Land Climate Dynamics Group   (Switzerland)

^g HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^h CSIRO   (Australia)

Author keywords

climate models; CMIP5; evapotranspiration; model validation

Indexed keywords

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION; WATER SUPPLY;

CMIP5; FACTORIAL DESIGN; INTERCOMPARISONS; MODEL DEVELOPMENT; MODEL VALIDATION; MODEL-DATA COMPARISONS; REFERENCE VALUES; SPATIAL RESOLUTION;

CLIMATE MODELS;

CLIMATE MODELING; DATA SET; DECISION ANALYSIS; DOMINANCE; EVAPOTRANSPIRATION; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SPATIAL RESOLUTION;

EID: 84880882512     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17489326     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024028     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Abramowitz G 2005 Towards a benchmark for land surface models Geophys. Res. Lett. 32 L22702
2. Abramowitz G 2012 Towards a public, standardized, diagnostic benchmarking system for land surface models Geosci. Model Dev. 5 819-27
3. Blyth E, Clark D B, Ellis R, Huntingford C, Los S, Pryor M, Best M and Sitch S 2011 A comprehensive set of benchmark tests for a land surface model of simultaneous fluxes of water and carbon at both the global and seasonal scale Geosci. Model Dev. 4 255-69
4. Braverman A, Cressie N and Teixeira J 2011 A likelihood-based comparison of temporal models for physical processes Stat. Anal. Data Min. 4 247-58
5. Breiman L, Friedman J, Olshen R and Stone C 1984 Classification and Regression Trees (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press)
6. 2 measurements Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 24 Gb2016
7. Fisher J B, Tu K P and Baldocchi D D 2008 Global estimates of the land-atmosphere water flux based on monthly AVHRR and ISLSCP-II data, validated at 16 FLUXNET sites Remote Sens. Environ. 112 901-19
8. Friedlingstein P et al 2006 Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis: results from the (CMIP)-M-4 model intercomparison J. Clim. 19 3337-53
9. Gleckler P J, Taylor K E and Doutriaux C 2008 Performance metrics for climate models J. Geophys. Res. 113 D06104
10. Jiménez C et al 2011 Global intercomparison of 12 land surface heat flux estimates J. Geophys. Res. 116 D02102
11. Jung M, Henkel K, Herold M and Churkina G 2006 Exploiting synergies of global land cover products for carbon cycle modeling Remote Sens. Environ. 101 534-53
12. Jung M et al 2011 Global patterns of land-atmosphere fluxes of carbon dioxide, latent heat, and sensible heat derived from eddy covariance, satellite, and meteorological observations J. Geophys. Res. 116 G00J07
13. Loveland T R, Reed B C, Brown J F, Ohlen D O, Zhu J, Yang L and Merchant J W 2001 Development of a global land cover characteristics database and IGBP DISCover from 1 km AVHRR data Int. J. Remote Sens. 21 1303-30
14. Luo Y Q et al 2012 A framework for benchmarking land models Biogeosciences 9 3857-74
15. Meehl G A et al 2007 The WCRP CMIP3 multi-model dataset: a new era in climate change research Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 88 1383-94
16. Mueller B et al 2011 Evaluation of global observations-based evapotranspiration datasets and IPCC AR4 simulations Geophys. Res. Lett. 38 L06402
17. Perkins S E, Pitman A J, Holbrook N J and McAneney J 2007 Evaluation of the AR4 climate models' simulated daily maximum temperature, minimum temperature and precipitation over Australia using probability density functions J. Clim. 20 4356-76
18. Randall D A et al 2007 Climate models and their evaluation Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ed S Solomon, D Qin, M Manning, Z Chen, M Marquis, K B Averyt, M Tignor and H L Miller (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
19. Randerson J T et al 2009 Systematic assessment of terrestrial biogeochemistry in coupled climate-carbon models Glob. Change Biol. 15 2462-84
20. Schaefer K et al 2012 A model-data comparison of gross primary productivity: results from the North American carbon program site synthesis J. Geophys. Res. 117 G03010
21. Schwalm C R, Williams C A and Schaefer K M 2011 Carbon consequences of global hydrologic change, 1948-2009 J. Geophys. Res. 116 G03042
22. 2 exchange across North America: results from the North American carbon program site synthesis J. Geophys. Res. 115 G00H05
23. Soares P M M, Cardoso R M, Miranda P M A, Viterbo P and Belo-Pereira M 2012 Assessment of the ENSEMBLES regional climate models in the representation of precipitation variability and extremes over Portugal J. Geophys. Res. 117 D07114
24. Taylor K E, Stouffer R J and Meehl G A 2012 An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93 485-98
25. Vinukollu R K, Wood E F, Ferguson C R and Fisher J B 2011 Global estimates of evapotranspiration for climate studies using multi-sensor remote sensing data: evapotranspiration-remote sensing and modeling evaluation of three process-based approaches Remote Sens. Environ. 115 801-23