the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Understanding each other's models: an introduction and a standard representation of 16 global water models to support intercomparison, improvement, and communication
Camelia-Eliza Telteu
Hannes Müller Schmied
Wim Thiery
Guoyong Leng
Peter Burek
Xingcai Liu
Julien Eric Stanislas Boulange
Lauren Seaby Andersen
Manolis Grillakis
Simon Newland Gosling
Yusuke Satoh
Oldrich Rakovec
Tobias Stacke
Jinfeng Chang
Niko Wanders
Harsh Lovekumar Shah
Tim Trautmann
Ganquan Mao
Naota Hanasaki
Aristeidis Koutroulis
Yadu Pokhrel
Luis Samaniego
Yoshihide Wada
Vimal Mishra
Junguo Liu
Petra Döll
Fang Zhao
Anne Gädeke
Sam S. Rabin
Florian Herz
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 24 Jun 2021)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 08 Jan 2021)
- Supplement to the preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2020-367', Wouter Knoben, 30 Jan 2021
Summary
The authors have written down the model code that exists in 16 global models using standardized terminology (in the Supporting Information). This facilitates comparison between the models. The authors qualitatively compare the models in great depth and summarize this information in tables in the main manuscript. The manuscript also covers a variety of other topics: “typical” model setups in the Global Hydrologic Modeling, Land Surface Modeling and Dynamic Global Vegetation Modeling communities, a general overview of earth system models and known deficiencies, and lessons learned from the ISIMIP2b model intercomparison project, which the 16 models were part of.
To start, let me say that the work shown in the Supporting Information (SI) is impressive. I know that standardizing model code into a single format is not easy and doing this for 16 models of the complexity typical of Earth System Models is no small feat. I expect that the SI to this manuscript can become a valuable resource for Earth System modelers. Unfortunately, I also need to say that I found this paper difficult to review for two reasons.
First, the discussion of model differences and similarities is based on the standardized description of model code in the SI but it is virtually impossible for any reviewer to factually check this information. There is simply too much of it. Consequently, the reader needs to trust that this information is correct; which they may do if the process used to generate the standardized code is transparent and robust. The description of the method used to standardize the model code is currently limited to section 3.2 (some definitions, a paragraph on the actual process used and a description of which subscripts and superscripts are used) and section 6.1 (more definitions). I think the paper needs to be more descriptive of the methodology used to standardize the models’ equation and of the ways in which the authors ensured that the descriptions in the SI match the actual code in the models.
Second, I think this paper may be trying to do too many things at once. As far as I can tell, the paper covers three general themes (with some overlap between them):
- Introducing a standardized way of writing ESM code, as evidenced by the manuscript’s title, the amount of work spent on creating the SI, section 3.2 and 6.1 (method for standardizing equations), and the lengthy discussion of model similarities and differences in section 5.
- Providing a general commentary on the state of, and challenges associated with, global hydrologic modelling, as evidenced by section 2 (typical model use in different modelling communities and confusion about terminology), section 4 (general history and challenges with global hydrologic modelling), section 6.2, Table 11 and its submission as a “review and perspective” paper.
- Laying the groundwork for a follow-up ISIMIP2b paper by describing the models and process of this MIP, as evidenced by the introduction, sections 3.1 and 3.3, section 5, and sections 6.3 (lessons learned from the MIP) and 6.4 (future work planned by MIP contributors).
I think any of these themes can be a good contribution to GMD but combining all three into a single paper seems to me to be too much. The manuscript is currently a bit haphazard in its organization, it was sometimes unclear to me how sections related to one another and due to the extremely broad scope I think none of the three themes get the amount of attention and detail they need to be convincing. What I missed for the 1st item was a detailed description of how the standardized writing scheme was developed, its strengths and weakness, procedures used to robustly translate model code, applicability to models outside this set of 16, a discussion of the implications of the discovered similarities and differences for ensemble modelling and model intercomparison, etc. What I missed for the 2nd item was a discussion of a considerable number of existing commentaries on this topic (some suggestions below) and a discussion of the information presented in Table 11. What I missed for the 3rd item is a more in-depth description of the MIP, established procedures, etc. Given that the manuscript is already just a bit shy of 1000 lines of actual text, I doubt there is space to fully cover all three themes. I would therefore strongly recommend clearly defining the scope of the paper and streamlining/modifying the text accordingly.
I have added various comments as annotations to the uploaded .pdf in the hopes that they are helpful to the authors in clarifying the text.
Kind regards,
Wouter Knoben
Possibly relevant literature
Archfield, S. A., et al. (2015), Accelerating advances in continental domain hydrologic modeling, Water Resour. Res., 51, 10078– 10091, doi:10.1002/2015WR017498.
Bierkens, MFP (2015) Global hydrology 2015: State, trends, and directions. Water Resour Res 51:4923-4947. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017173
Clark MP, Fan Y, Lawrence DM, et al (2015a) Improving the representation of hydrologic processes in Earth System Models. Water Resources Research 51:5929–5956. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017096
Clark, M. P., Bierkens, M. F. P., Samaniego, L., Woods, R. A., Uijlenhoet, R., Bennett, K. E., Pauwels, V. R. N., Cai, X., Wood, A. W., and Peters-Lidard, C. D. (2017): The evolution of process-based hydrologic models: historical challenges and the collective quest for physical realism, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 3427–3440, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-3427-2017
Gleeson, T., Wagener, T., Döll, et al. (in review, 2020) HESS Opinions: Improving the evaluation of groundwater representation in continental to global scale models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2020-378
Gupta, H. V., M. P. Clark, J. A. Vrugt, G. Abramowitz, and M. Ye (2012), Towards a comprehensive assessment of model structural adequacy, Water Resour. Res., 48, W08301, doi:10.1029/2011WR011044
-
CC1: 'Comment on gmd-2020-367', Charles Vorosmarty, 01 Feb 2021
In the opening paragraph to section 4 (Review....), the authors present a short summary of some key developments in global water modeling. They also state on lines 290-92 "....Dooge (1982) identified the two major challenges of global hydrology: scaling and parameterization. Eagleson (1986) declared the necessity of global-scale hydrology. Inevitably, during the 1990s, the first global hydrological models were developed (Alcamo et al., 1997; Vörösmarty et al., 1998, Arnell, 1999)."
While I realize the purpose of the current work is not to present an exhaustive review, the authors' statement assigning the decade of the 1990's to the development of the first such models is historically incorrect. These models, as well as essential inputs, calibration/validation data sets, and modeling application studies were in fact first developed during the 1980s, motivated in no small measure by the proposals made by Dooge and Eagleson. I provide a short list of publications that support this assertion. All of these pre-date, and some substantially, the first paper in the list which appeared in the late 1990s (Alcamo et al. 1997--which I note parenthetically appears not to have been published in the peer-reviewed literature).
In keeping with the comment of Dooge on calibration and scaling I believe that the paper by Federer et al. 1996 might be particularly relevant to cite. It is also important to note that without subdstantial effort to create digital archives for calibration and validation data, the community's progress toward a global-scale capability would like have languished for quite some time. For this reason, I include in the list a global hydrological data compendium that was broadly adopted by the community for this purpose after it was made available in 1996. It might also be noted that the first global-scale application study of the impact of hydraulic engineering (i.e., on dams and reservoirs) was published in 1997; an absolute requirement was the use of these first generation models and their supporting digital hydrologic data archive.
I would anticipate that the authors to be kind enough to acknowledge this shortcoming.
Gildea M.P., B. Moore, C.J. Vörösmarty, B. Berquist, J.M. Melillo, K. Nadelhoffer, and B.J. Peterson (1986). A global model of nutrient cycling: I. Introduction, model structure and terrestrial mobilization of nutrients. In: Correll, D. (ed.), Watershed Research Perspectives. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Vörösmarty, C.J., M.P. Gildea, B. Moore, B.J. Peterson, B. Berquist, and J.M. Melillo (1986). A global model of nutrient cycling: II. Aquatic processing, retention, and distribution of nutrients in large drainage basins. In: Correll, D. (ed.), Watershed Research Perspectives. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Vörösmarty, C.J., B. Moore, M.P. Gildea, B. Peterson, J. Melillo, D. Kicklighter, J. Raich, E. Rastetter, and P. Steudler (1988). A global, georeferenced model of hydrology and water quality applied to the Amazon Basin. In: Nittrouer, C. and D. DeMaster (eds.), Proc. of AGU Chapman Conference on the Amazon Dispersal System. Charleston, SC.
Vörösmarty, C.J., B. Moore, M.P. Gildea, B. Peterson, J. Melillo, D. Kicklighter, J. Raich, E. Rastetter, and P. Steudler (1989). A continental–scale model of water balance and fluvial transport: Application to South America. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 3: 241-65.
Vörösmarty, C.J., B. Fekete, and B.A. Tucker (1996). River Discharge Database, Version 1.0 (RivDIS v1.0), Volumes 0 through 6. A contribution to IHP-V Theme 1. Technical Documents in Hydrology Series. UNESCO, Paris.
Federer, C.A., C.J. Vörösmarty, and B. Fekete (1996). Intercomparison of methods for potential evapo-transpiration in regional or global water balance models. Water Resources Research 32: 2315-21.
Vörösmarty, C.J. K. Sharma, B. Fekete, A.H. Copeland, J. Holden, J. Marble, and J.A. Lough (1997). The storage and aging of continental runoff in large reservoir systems of the world. Ambio 26: 210-19.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-367-CC1 -
CC2: 'Comment on gmd-2020-367', Charles Vorosmarty, 01 Feb 2021
In the opening paragraph to section 4 (Review....), the authors present a short summary of some key developments in global water modeling. They also state on lines 290-92 "....Dooge (1982) identified the two major challenges of global hydrology: scaling and parameterization. Eagleson (1986) declared the necessity of global-scale hydrology. Inevitably, during the 1990s, the first global hydrological models were developed (Alcamo et al., 1997; Vörösmarty et al., 1998, Arnell, 1999)."
While I realize the purpose of the current work is not to present an exhaustive review, the authors' statement assigning the decade of the 1990's to the development of the first such models is historically incorrect. These models, as well as essential inputs, calibration/validation data sets, and modeling application studies were in fact first developed during the 1980s, motivated in no small measure by the proposals made by Dooge and Eagleson. I provide a short list of publications that support this assertion. All of these pre-date, and some substantially, the first paper in the list which appeared in the late 1990s (Alcamo et al. 1997--which I note parenthetically appears not to have been published in the peer-reviewed literature).
In keeping with the comment of Dooge on calibration and scaling I believe that the paper by Federer et al. 1996 might be particularly relevant to cite. It is also important to note that without subdstantial effort to create digital archives for calibration and validation data, the community's progress toward a global-scale capability would likely have languished for quite some time. For this reason, I include in the list a global hydrological data compendium that was broadly adopted by the community for this purpose after it was made available in 1996. It might also be noted that the first global-scale application study of the impact of hydraulic engineering (i.e., on dams and reservoirs) was published in 1997; an absolute requirement was the use of these first generation models and their supporting digital hydrologic data archive.
I would anticipate that the authors be kind enough to acknowledge this shortcoming.
Gildea M.P., B. Moore, C.J. Vörösmarty, B. Berquist, J.M. Melillo, K. Nadelhoffer, and B.J. Peterson (1986). A global model of nutrient cycling: I. Introduction, model structure and terrestrial mobilization of nutrients. In: Correll, D. (ed.), Watershed Research Perspectives. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Vörösmarty, C.J., M.P. Gildea, B. Moore, B.J. Peterson, B. Berquist, and J.M. Melillo (1986). A global model of nutrient cycling: II. Aquatic processing, retention, and distribution of nutrients in large drainage basins. In: Correll, D. (ed.), Watershed Research Perspectives. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Vörösmarty, C.J., B. Moore, M.P. Gildea, B. Peterson, J. Melillo, D. Kicklighter, J. Raich, E. Rastetter, and P. Steudler (1988). A global, georeferenced model of hydrology and water quality applied to the Amazon Basin. In: Nittrouer, C. and D. DeMaster (eds.), Proc. of AGU Chapman Conference on the Amazon Dispersal System. Charleston, SC.
Vörösmarty, C.J., B. Moore, M.P. Gildea, B. Peterson, J. Melillo, D. Kicklighter, J. Raich, E. Rastetter, and P. Steudler (1989). A continental–scale model of water balance and fluvial transport: Application to South America. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 3: 241-65.
Vörösmarty, C.J., B. Fekete, and B.A. Tucker (1996). River Discharge Database, Version 1.0 (RivDIS v1.0), Volumes 0 through 6. A contribution to IHP-V Theme 1. Technical Documents in Hydrology Series. UNESCO, Paris.
Federer, C.A., C.J. Vörösmarty, and B. Fekete (1996). Intercomparison of methods for potential evapo-transpiration in regional or global water balance models. Water Resources Research 32: 2315-21.
Vörösmarty, C.J. K. Sharma, B. Fekete, A.H. Copeland, J. Holden, J. Marble, and J.A. Lough (1997). The storage and aging of continental runoff in large reservoir systems of the world. Ambio 26: 210-19.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-367-CC2 -
RC2: 'Comment on gmd-2020-367', Laura Devitt, 13 Feb 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2020-367/gmd-2020-367-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Comment on gmd-2020-367', Camelia-Eliza Telteu, 02 Apr 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2020-367/gmd-2020-367-AC1-supplement.pdf
Peer review completion
- Article
(995 KB) - Full-text XML