Staff Publications

Staff Publications

  • external user (warningwarning)
  • Log in as
  • language uk
  • About

    'Staff publications' is the digital repository of Wageningen University & Research

    'Staff publications' contains references to publications authored by Wageningen University staff from 1976 onward.

    Publications authored by the staff of the Research Institutes are available from 1995 onwards.

    Full text documents are added when available. The database is updated daily and currently holds about 240,000 items, of which 72,000 in open access.

    We have a manual that explains all the features 

Records 1 - 4 / 4

  • help
  • print

    Print search results

  • export

    Export search results

  • alert
    We will mail you new results for this query: q=Müller Schmied
Check title to add to marked list
State-of-the-art global models underestimate impacts from climate extremes
Schewe, Jacob ; Gosling, Simon N. ; Reyer, Christopher ; Zhao, Fang ; Ciais, Philippe ; Elliott, Joshua ; Francois, Louis ; Huber, Veronika ; Lotze, Heike K. ; Seneviratne, Sonia I. ; Vliet, Michelle T.H. Van; Vautard, Robert ; Wada, Yoshihide ; Breuer, Lutz ; Büchner, Matthias ; Carozza, David A. ; Chang, Jinfeng ; Coll, Marta ; Deryng, Delphine ; Wit, Allard De; Eddy, Tyler D. ; Folberth, Christian ; Frieler, Katja ; Friend, Andrew D. ; Gerten, Dieter ; Gudmundsson, Lukas ; Hanasaki, Naota ; Ito, Akihiko ; Khabarov, Nikolay ; Kim, Hyungjun ; Lawrence, Peter ; Morfopoulos, Catherine ; Müller, Christoph ; Müller Schmied, Hannes ; Orth, René ; Ostberg, Sebastian ; Pokhrel, Yadu ; Pugh, Thomas A.M. ; Sakurai, Gen ; Satoh, Yusuke ; Schmid, Erwin ; Stacke, Tobias ; Steenbeek, Jeroen ; Steinkamp, Jörg ; Tang, Qiuhong ; Tian, Hanqin ; Tittensor, Derek P. ; Volkholz, Jan ; Wang, Xuhui ; Warszawski, Lila - \ 2019
Nature Communications 10 (2019). - ISSN 2041-1723
Global impact models represent process-level understanding of how natural and human systems may be affected by climate change. Their projections are used in integrated assessments of climate change. Here we test, for the first time, systematically across many important systems, how well such impact models capture the impacts of extreme climate conditions. Using the 2003 European heat wave and drought as a historical analogue for comparable events in the future, we find that a majority of models underestimate the extremeness of impacts in important sectors such as agriculture, terrestrial ecosystems, and heat-related human mortality, while impacts on water resources and hydropower are overestimated in some river basins; and the spread across models is often large. This has important implications for economic assessments of climate change impacts that rely on these models. It also means that societal risks from future extreme events may be greater than previously thought.
Assessing the impacts of 1.5°C global warming - Simulation protocol of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2b)
Frieler, Katja ; Lange, Stefan ; Piontek, Franziska ; Reyer, Christopher P.O. ; Schewe, Jacob ; Warszawski, Lila ; Zhao, Fang ; Chini, Louise ; Denvil, Sebastien ; Emanuel, Kerry ; Geiger, Tobias ; Halladay, Kate ; Hurtt, George ; Mengel, Matthias ; Murakami, Daisgbre ; Ostberg, Sebastian ; Popp, Alexander ; Riva, Riccardo ; Stevanovic, Miodrag ; SuzGBRi, Tatsuo ; Volkholz, Jan ; Burke, Eleanor ; Ciais, Philippe ; Ebi, Kristie ; Eddy, Tyler D. ; Elliott, Joshua ; Galbraith, Eric ; Gosling, Simon N. ; Hattermann, Fred ; Hickler, Thomas ; Hinkel, Jochen ; Hof, Christian ; Huber, Veronika ; Jägermeyr, Jonas ; Krysanova, Valentina ; Marcé, Rafael ; Müller Schmied, Hannes ; Mouratiadou, Ioanna ; Pierson, Don ; Tittensor, Derek P. ; Vautard, Robert ; Vliet, Michelle Van; Biber, Matthias F. ; Betts, Richard A. ; Leon Bodirsky, Benjamin ; Deryng, Delphine ; Frolking, Steve ; Jones, Chris D. ; Lotze, Heike K. ; Lotze-Campen, Hermann ; Sahajpal, Ritvik ; Thonicke, Kirsten ; Tian, Hanqin ; Yamagata, Yoshiki - \ 2017
Geoscientific Model Development 10 (2017)12. - ISSN 1991-959X - p. 4321 - 4345.
In Paris, France, December 2015, the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) invited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide a special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5ĝ€°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways. In Nairobi, Kenya, April 2016, the IPCC panel accepted the invitation. Here we describe the response devised within the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) to provide tailored, cross-sectorally consistent impact projections to broaden the scientific basis for the report. The simulation protocol is designed to allow for (1) separation of the impacts of historical warming starting from pre-industrial conditions from impacts of other drivers such as historical land-use changes (based on pre-industrial and historical impact model simulations); (2) quantification of the impacts of additional warming up to 1.5ĝ€°C, including a potential overshoot and long-term impacts up to 2299, and comparison to higher levels of global mean temperature change (based on the low-emissions Representative Concentration Pathway RCP2.6 and a no-mitigation pathway RCP6.0) with socio-economic conditions fixed at 2005 levels; and (3) assessment of the climate effects based on the same climate scenarios while accounting for simultaneous changes in socio-economic conditions following the middle-of-the-road Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP2, Fricko et al., 2016) and in particular differential bioenergy requirements associated with the transformation of the energy system to comply with RCP2.6 compared to RCP6.0. With the aim of providing the scientific basis for an aggregation of impacts across sectors and analysis of cross-sectoral interactions that may dampen or amplify sectoral impacts, the protocol is designed to facilitate consistent impact projections from a range of impact models across different sectors (global and regional hydrology, lakes, global crops, global vegetation, regional forests, global and regional marine ecosystems and fisheries, global and regional coastal infrastructure, energy supply and demand, temperature-related mortality, and global terrestrial biodiversity).
The critical role of the routing scheme in simulating peak river discharge in global hydrological models
Zhao, Fang ; Veldkamp, Ted I.E. ; Frieler, Katja ; Schewe, Jacob ; Ostberg, Sebastian ; Willner, Sven ; Schauberger, Bernhard ; Gosling, Simon N. ; Schmied, Hannes Müller ; Portmann, Felix T. ; Leng, Guoyong ; Huang, Maoyi ; Liu, Xingcai ; Tang, Qiuhong ; Hanasaki, Naota ; Biemans, Hester ; Gerten, Dieter ; Satoh, Yusuke ; Pokhrel, Yadu ; Stacke, Tobias ; Ciais, Philippe ; Chang, Jinfeng ; Ducharne, Agnes ; Guimberteau, Matthieu ; Wada, Yoshihide ; Kim, Hyungjun ; Yamazaki, Dai - \ 2017
Environmental Research Letters 12 (2017)7. - ISSN 1748-9318
daily runoff - flood - global hydrological models - GRDC - ISIMIP - peak river discharge - river routing
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 project. The runoff simulations were used as input for the global river routing model CaMa-Flood. 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 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 2/3 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.
Intercomparison of global river discharge simulations focusing on dam operation - Multiple models analysis in two case-study river basins, Missouri-Mississippi and Green-Colorado
Masaki, Yoshimitsu ; Hanasaki, Naota ; Biemans, Hester ; Müller Schmied, Hannes ; Tang, Qiuhong ; Wada, Yoshihide ; Gosling, Simon N. ; Takahashi, Kiyoshi ; Hijioka, Yasuaki - \ 2017
Environmental Research Letters 12 (2017)5. - ISSN 1748-9318
flood control - flow regimes - reservoir - river discharge

We performed an intercomparison of river discharge regulated by dams under four meteorological forcings among five global hydrological models for a historical period by simulation. This is the first global multimodel intercomparison study on dam-regulated river flow. Although the simulations were conducted globally, the Missouri-Mississippi and Green-Colorado Rivers were chosen as case-study sites in this study. The hydrological models incorporate generic schemes of dam operation, not specific to a certain dam. We examined river discharge on a longitudinal section of river channels to investigate the effects of dams on simulated discharge, especially at the seasonal time scale. We found that the magnitude of dam regulation differed considerably among the hydrological models. The difference was attributable not only to dam operation schemes but also to the magnitude of simulated river discharge flowing into dams. That is, although a similar algorithm of dam operation schemes was incorporated in different hydrological models, the magnitude of dam regulation substantially differed among the models. Intermodel discrepancies tended to decrease toward the lower reaches of these river basins, which means model dependence is less significant toward lower reaches. These case-study results imply that, intermodel comparisons of river discharge should be made at different locations along the river's course to critically examine the performance of hydrological models because the performance can vary with the locations.

Check title to add to marked list

Show 20 50 100 records per page

Please log in to use this service. Login as Wageningen University & Research user or guest user in upper right hand corner of this page.