Why do the Global Warming Responses of Land‐Surface Models and Climatic Dryness Metrics Disagree?

Abstract Earth System Models’ complex land components simulate a patchwork of increases and decreases in surface water availability when driven by projected future climate changes. Yet, commonly‐used simple theories for surface water availability, such as the Aridity Index (P/E0) and Palmer Drought...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jacob Scheff, Sloan Coats, Marysa M. Laguë
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2022-08-01
Series:Earth's Future
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF002814
_version_ 1828431451249442816
author Jacob Scheff
Sloan Coats
Marysa M. Laguë
author_facet Jacob Scheff
Sloan Coats
Marysa M. Laguë
author_sort Jacob Scheff
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Earth System Models’ complex land components simulate a patchwork of increases and decreases in surface water availability when driven by projected future climate changes. Yet, commonly‐used simple theories for surface water availability, such as the Aridity Index (P/E0) and Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), obtain severe, globally dominant drying when driven by those same climate changes, leading to disagreement among published studies. In this work, we use a common modeling framework to show that Earth System Model (ESM) simulated runoff‐ratio and soil‐moisture responses become much more consistent with the P/E0 and PDSI responses when several previously known factors that the latter do not account for are cut out of the simulations. This reconciles the disagreement and makes the full ESM responses more understandable. For ESM runoff ratio, the most important factor causing the more positive global response compared to P/E0 is the concentration of precipitation in time with greenhouse warming. For ESM soil moisture, the most important factor causing the more positive global response compared to PDSI is the effect of increasing carbon dioxide on plant physiology, which also drives most of the spatial variation in the runoff ratio enhancement. The effect of increasing vapor‐pressure deficit on plant physiology is a key secondary factor for both. Future work will assess the utility of both the ESMs and the simple indices for understanding observed, historical trends.
first_indexed 2024-12-10T18:03:27Z
format Article
id doaj.art-d4a4ae4e1b854850a10c516396bbf15f
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2328-4277
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-10T18:03:27Z
publishDate 2022-08-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Earth's Future
spelling doaj.art-d4a4ae4e1b854850a10c516396bbf15f2022-12-22T01:38:42ZengWileyEarth's Future2328-42772022-08-01108n/an/a10.1029/2022EF002814Why do the Global Warming Responses of Land‐Surface Models and Climatic Dryness Metrics Disagree?Jacob Scheff0Sloan Coats1Marysa M. Laguë2Department of Geography and Earth Sciences University of North Carolina Charlotte NC USADepartment of Earth Sciences University of Hawai'i Honolulu HI USAColdwater Laboratory and Center for Hydrology University of Saskatchewan Canmore AB CanadaAbstract Earth System Models’ complex land components simulate a patchwork of increases and decreases in surface water availability when driven by projected future climate changes. Yet, commonly‐used simple theories for surface water availability, such as the Aridity Index (P/E0) and Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), obtain severe, globally dominant drying when driven by those same climate changes, leading to disagreement among published studies. In this work, we use a common modeling framework to show that Earth System Model (ESM) simulated runoff‐ratio and soil‐moisture responses become much more consistent with the P/E0 and PDSI responses when several previously known factors that the latter do not account for are cut out of the simulations. This reconciles the disagreement and makes the full ESM responses more understandable. For ESM runoff ratio, the most important factor causing the more positive global response compared to P/E0 is the concentration of precipitation in time with greenhouse warming. For ESM soil moisture, the most important factor causing the more positive global response compared to PDSI is the effect of increasing carbon dioxide on plant physiology, which also drives most of the spatial variation in the runoff ratio enhancement. The effect of increasing vapor‐pressure deficit on plant physiology is a key secondary factor for both. Future work will assess the utility of both the ESMs and the simple indices for understanding observed, historical trends.https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF002814climate changeariditydroughtrunoffsoil moisturewater availability
spellingShingle Jacob Scheff
Sloan Coats
Marysa M. Laguë
Why do the Global Warming Responses of Land‐Surface Models and Climatic Dryness Metrics Disagree?
Earth's Future
climate change
aridity
drought
runoff
soil moisture
water availability
title Why do the Global Warming Responses of Land‐Surface Models and Climatic Dryness Metrics Disagree?
title_full Why do the Global Warming Responses of Land‐Surface Models and Climatic Dryness Metrics Disagree?
title_fullStr Why do the Global Warming Responses of Land‐Surface Models and Climatic Dryness Metrics Disagree?
title_full_unstemmed Why do the Global Warming Responses of Land‐Surface Models and Climatic Dryness Metrics Disagree?
title_short Why do the Global Warming Responses of Land‐Surface Models and Climatic Dryness Metrics Disagree?
title_sort why do the global warming responses of land surface models and climatic dryness metrics disagree
topic climate change
aridity
drought
runoff
soil moisture
water availability
url https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF002814
work_keys_str_mv AT jacobscheff whydotheglobalwarmingresponsesoflandsurfacemodelsandclimaticdrynessmetricsdisagree
AT sloancoats whydotheglobalwarmingresponsesoflandsurfacemodelsandclimaticdrynessmetricsdisagree
AT marysamlague whydotheglobalwarmingresponsesoflandsurfacemodelsandclimaticdrynessmetricsdisagree