2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- ItemUnderstanding each other's models: an introduction and a standard representation of 16 global water models to support intercomparison, improvement, and communication(Katlenburg-Lindau : Copernicus, 2021-6-24) Telteu, Camelia-Eliza; Müller Schmied, Hannes; Thiery, Wim; Leng, Guoyong; Burek, Peter; Liu, Xingcai; Boulange, Julien Eric Stanislas; Andersen, Lauren Seaby; Grillakis, Manolis; Gosling, Simon Newland; Satoh, Yusuke; Rakovec, Oldrich; Stacke, Tobias; Chang, Jinfeng; Wanders, Niko; Shah, Harsh Lovekumar; Trautmann, Tim; Mao, Ganquan; Hanasaki, Naota; Koutroulis, Aristeidis; Pokhrel, Yadu; Samaniego, Luis; Wada, Yoshihide; Mishra, Vimal; Liu, Junguo; Döll, Petra; Zhao, Fang; Gädeke, Anne; Rabin, Sam S.; Herz, FlorianGlobal water models (GWMs) simulate the terrestrial water cycle on the global scale and are used to assess the impacts of climate change on freshwater systems. GWMs are developed within different modelling frameworks and consider different underlying hydrological processes, leading to varied model structures. Furthermore, the equations used to describe various processes take different forms and are generally accessible only from within the individual model codes. These factors have hindered a holistic and detailed understanding of how different models operate, yet such an understanding is crucial for explaining the results of model evaluation studies, understanding inter-model differences in their simulations, and identifying areas for future model development. This study provides a comprehensive overview of how 16 state-of-the-art GWMs are designed. We analyse water storage compartments, water flows, and human water use sectors included in models that provide simulations for the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project phase 2b (ISIMIP2b). We develop a standard writing style for the model equations to enhance model intercomparison, improvement, and communication. In this study, WaterGAP2 used the highest number of water storage compartments, 11, and CWatM used 10 compartments. Six models used six compartments, while four models (DBH, JULES-W1, Mac-PDM.20, and VIC) used the lowest number, three compartments. WaterGAP2 simulates five human water use sectors, while four models (CLM4.5, CLM5.0, LPJmL, and MPI-HM) simulate only water for the irrigation sector. We conclude that, even though hydrological processes are often based on similar equations for various processes, in the end these equations have been adjusted or models have used different values for specific parameters or specific variables. The similarities and differences found among the models analysed in this study are expected to enable us to reduce the uncertainty in multi-model ensembles, improve existing hydrological processes, and integrate new processes.
- ItemImpacts of hydrological model calibration on projected hydrological changes under climate change—a multi-model assessment in three large river basins(Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 2020) Huang, Shaochun; Shah, Harsh; Naz, Bibi S.; Shrestha, Narayan; Mishra, Vimal; Daggupati, Prasad; Ghimire, Uttam; Vetter, TobiasThis study aimed to investigate the influence of hydrological model calibration/validation on discharge projections for three large river basins (the Rhine, Upper Mississippi and Upper Yellow). Three hydrological models (HMs), which have been firstly calibrated against the monthly discharge at the outlet of each basin (simple calibration), were re-calibrated against the daily discharge at the outlet and intermediate gauges under contrast climate conditions simultaneously (enhanced calibration). In addition, the models were validated in terms of hydrological indicators of interest (median, low and high flows) as well as actual evapotranspiration in the historical period. The models calibrated using both calibration methods were then driven by the same bias corrected climate projections from five global circulation models (GCMs) under four Representative Concentration Pathway scenarios (RCPs). The hydrological changes of the indicators were represented by the ensemble median, ensemble mean and ensemble weighted means of all combinations of HMs and GCMs under each RCP. The results showed moderate (5–10%) to strong influence (> 10%) of the calibration methods on the ensemble medians/means for the Mississippi, minor to moderate (up to 10%) influence for the Yellow and minor (< 5%) influence for the Rhine. In addition, the enhanced calibration/validation method reduced the shares of uncertainty related to HMs for three indicators in all basins when the strict weighting method was used. It also showed that the successful enhanced calibration had the potential to reduce the uncertainty of hydrological projections, especially when the HM uncertainty was significant after the simple calibration. © 2020, The Author(s).