Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Contrasting Hydroclimatic Model-Data Agreements Over the Nordic-Arctic Region
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physical Geography.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9258-6162
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physical Geography.
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physical Geography.
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physical Geography.
Show others and affiliations
Number of Authors: 72019 (English)In: Earth's Future, ISSN 1384-5160, E-ISSN 2328-4277, Vol. 7, no 12, p. 1270-1282Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Rapid changes in high-latitude hydroclimate have important implications for human societies and environment. Previous studies of different regions have indicated better agreement between climate model results and observation data for the thermodynamic variable of surface air temperature (T) than for the water variables of precipitation (P), evapotranspiration (ET), and runoff (R). Here we compare climate model output with observations for 64 Nordic and Arctic hydrological basins of different sizes, and for the whole region combined. We find an unexpectedly high agreement between models and observations for R, about as high as the model-observation agreement for T and distinctly higher than that for P or ET. Model-observation agreement for R and T is also consistently higher on the whole-region scale than individual basin scales. In contrast, model-observation agreement for P and ET is overall lower, and for some error measures also lower for the whole region than for individual basins of various scales. Region-specific soil freeze-thaw bias of climate models can at least partly explain the low model-observation agreement for P and ET, while leaving modeled R relatively unaffected. Thereby, model projections for this region may be similarly reliable and directly useful for large-scale average conditions of R as of T.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019. Vol. 7, no 12, p. 1270-1282
Keywords [en]
Hydroclimatology, Land, atmosphere interactions, Modeling, Climate model evaluation, High-latitude climate, Arctic region
National Category
Earth and Related Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-179718DOI: 10.1029/2019EF001296ISI: 000509028600002OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-179718DiVA, id: diva2:1411672
Available from: 2020-03-04 Created: 2020-03-04 Last updated: 2020-03-04Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Bring, ArvidGoldenberg, RomainKalantari, ZahraPrieto, CarmenMa, YanJarsjö, JerkerDestouni, Georgia
By organisation
Department of Physical Geography
In the same journal
Earth's Future
Earth and Related Environmental Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf