Go to Article
← Derived from global study

Evaluation of simulated discharge in global hydrological models from ISIMIP3a

Stefanie Heinicke1, Jan Volkholz1, Jacob Schewe1, Simon Gosling2, Hannes Müller Schmied3,4, Sandra Zimmermann1, Matthias Mengel1, Inga Sauer1, Peter Burek5, Jinfeng Chang6, Sian Kou-Giesbrecht7, Manoli Grillakis8, Luca Guillaumot5,9, Naota Hanasaki10, Aristeidis Koutroulis8, Kedar Otta10, Wei Qi11, Yusuke Satoh12, Tobias Stacke13, Tokuta Yokohata10 & Katja Frieler1

Print Article ↓
This PDF is a print copy of the online article at . Accessed on .
Country Dataset
United States
Topics
Water
Studytype
Model evaluation
Published
24 June 2024

Results extracted for United States. Refer to the global article for more context.

Daily river discharge for station(s) in United States

Daily discharge [m3/s] at for observations (Obs), and simulations by model’s internal routing scheme (Mir) and CaMa-Flood (CaMa). The model JULES-W2 provided discharge simulated using two different routing schemes (Mir and Mir2). Only the time-period for which observational data was available is shown.

Link to isimip data

FIG 1

QQ plots for station(s) in United States

QQ-plot comparing the distribution of observed and the distribution of simulated values for daily discharge [in m3/s] at for observation (Obs), and simulations by model’s internal routing scheme (Mir) and CaMa-Flood (CaMa). The model JULES-W2 provided discharge simulated using two different routing schemes (Mir and Mir2)."

Link to isimip data

FIG 2

Annual maximum river discharge for station(s) in United States

Maximum annual discharge [m3/s] at for observations (Obs), and simulations by model’s internal routing scheme (Mir) and CaMa-Flood (CaMa). The model JULES-W2 provided discharge simulated using two different routing schemes (Mir and Mir2). Only the time-period for which observational data was available is shown.

Link to isimip data

FIG 3

Cumulative annual maximum river discharge for station(s) in United States

Cumulative plot of maximum annual discharge [m3/s] at for observations (Obs), and simulations by model’s internal routing scheme (Mir) and CaMa-Flood (CaMa). The model JULES-W2 provided discharge simulated using two different routing schemes (Mir and Mir2).

Link to isimip data

FIG 4

Affiliations

1 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association, Potsdam, Germany

2 School of Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom

3 Institute of Physical Geography (IPG), Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

4 Senckenberg Leibniz Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (SBiK-F), Frankfurt am Main, Germany

5 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria

6 College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Zhejiang, China

7 Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada

8 Technical University of Crete, Chania, Greece

9 Water, Environment, Processes and Analyses Division, BRGM – French Geological Survey, Orléans, France

10 National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan

11 Southern University of Science and Technology, China

12 Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon, Republic of Korea

13 Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Germany

↑ Back to top