Articles | Volume 14, issue 8
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4865-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4865-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Model description paper
| 
05 Aug 2021
Model description paper |
| 05 Aug 2021
| 05 Aug 2021
Model cascade from meteorological drivers to river flood hazard: flood-cascade v1.0
Peter Uhe
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Cabot Institute for the Environment, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Daniel Mitchell
Cabot Institute for the Environment, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Paul D. Bates
Cabot Institute for the Environment, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Nans Addor
Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Jeff Neal
Cabot Institute for the Environment, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Hylke E. Beck
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra (VA), Italy
Related authors
No articles found.
Nathan P. Gillett, Isla R. Simpson, Gabi Hegerl, Reto Knutti, Dann Mitchell, Aurélien Ribes, Hideo Shiogama, Dáithí Stone, Claudia Tebaldi, Piotr Wolski, Wenxia Zhang, and Vivek K. Arora
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4399–4416, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4399-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4399-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate model simulations of the response to human and natural influences together, natural climate influences alone and greenhouse gases alone are key to quantifying human influence on the climate. The last set of such coordinated simulations underpinned key findings in the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Here we propose a new set of such simulations to be used in the next generation of attribution studies and to underpin the next IPCC report.
Nele Reyniers, Qianyu Zha, Nans Addor, Timothy J. Osborn, Nicole Forstenhäusler, and Yi He
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 2113–2133, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2113-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2113-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present bias-corrected UK Climate Projections 2018 (UKCP18) regional datasets for temperature, precipitation, and potential evapotranspiration (1981–2080). All 12 members of the 12 km ensemble were corrected using quantile mapping and a change-preserving variant. Both methods effectively reduce biases in multiple statistics while maintaining projected climatic changes. We provide guidance on using the bias-corrected datasets for climate change impact assessment.
Thomas P. Collings, Callum J. R. Murphy-Barltrop, Conor Murphy, Ivan D. Haigh, Paul D. Bates, and Niall D. Quinn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1138, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1138, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Determining the threshold above which events are considered extreme is an important consideration for many modelling procedures. We propose an extension of an existing data-driven method for automatic threshold selection. We test our approach on tide gauge records, and show that it outperforms existing techniques. This helps improve estimates of extreme sea levels, and we hope other researchers will use this method for other natural hazards.
Olivier Delaigue, Guilherme Mendoza Guimarães, Pierre Brigode, Benoît Génot, Charles Perrin, Jean-Michel Soubeyroux, Bruno Janet, Nans Addor, and Vazken Andréassian
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 1461–1479, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-1461-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-1461-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This dataset covers 654 rivers all flowing in France. The provided time series and catchment attributes will be of interest to those modelers wishing to analyze hydrological behavior and perform model assessments.
Joshua Green, Ivan D. Haigh, Niall Quinn, Jeff Neal, Thomas Wahl, Melissa Wood, Dirk Eilander, Marleen de Ruiter, Philip Ward, and Paula Camus
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 747–816, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-747-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-747-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Compound flooding, involving the combination or successive occurrence of two or more flood drivers, can amplify flood impacts in coastal/estuarine regions. This paper reviews the practices, trends, methodologies, applications, and findings of coastal compound flooding literature at regional to global scales. We explore the types of compound flood events, their mechanistic processes, and the range of terminology. Lastly, this review highlights knowledge gaps and implications for future practices.
Claudia Färber, Henning Plessow, Simon Mischel, Frederik Kratzert, Nans Addor, Guy Shalev, and Ulrich Looser
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-427, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-427, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
Large-sample datasets are essential in hydrological science to support modelling studies and advance process understanding. Caravan is a community initiative to create a large-sample hydrology dataset of meteorological forcing data, catchment attributes, and discharge data for catchments around the world. This dataset is a subset of hydrological discharge data and station-based watersheds from the Global Runoff Data Centre (GRDC), which are covered by an open data policy.
Dapeng Feng, Hylke Beck, Jens de Bruijn, Reetik Kumar Sahu, Yusuke Satoh, Yoshihide Wada, Jiangtao Liu, Ming Pan, Kathryn Lawson, and Chaopeng Shen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7181–7198, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7181-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7181-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate hydrologic modeling is vital to characterizing water cycle responses to climate change. For the first time at this scale, we use differentiable physics-informed machine learning hydrologic models to simulate rainfall–runoff processes for 3753 basins around the world and compare them with purely data-driven and traditional modeling approaches. This sets a benchmark for hydrologic estimates around the world and builds foundations for improving global hydrologic simulations.
Solomon H. Gebrechorkos, Julian Leyland, Simon J. Dadson, Sagy Cohen, Louise Slater, Michel Wortmann, Philip J. Ashworth, Georgina L. Bennett, Richard Boothroyd, Hannah Cloke, Pauline Delorme, Helen Griffith, Richard Hardy, Laurence Hawker, Stuart McLelland, Jeffrey Neal, Andrew Nicholas, Andrew J. Tatem, Ellie Vahidi, Yinxue Liu, Justin Sheffield, Daniel R. Parsons, and Stephen E. Darby
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 3099–3118, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3099-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3099-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluated six high-resolution global precipitation datasets for hydrological modelling. MSWEP and ERA5 showed better performance, but spatial variability was high. The findings highlight the importance of careful dataset selection for river discharge modelling due to the lack of a universally superior dataset. Further improvements in global precipitation data products are needed.
Thomas P. Collings, Niall D. Quinn, Ivan D. Haigh, Joshua Green, Izzy Probyn, Hamish Wilkinson, Sanne Muis, William V. Sweet, and Paul D. Bates
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 2403–2423, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-2403-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-2403-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Coastal areas are at risk of flooding from rising sea levels and extreme weather events. This study applies a new approach to estimating the likelihood of coastal flooding around the world. The method uses data from observations and computer models to create a detailed map of where these coastal floods might occur. The approach can predict flooding in areas for which there are few or no data available. The results can be used to help prepare for and prevent this type of flooding.
Margarita Choulga, Francesca Moschini, Cinzia Mazzetti, Stefania Grimaldi, Juliana Disperati, Hylke Beck, Peter Salamon, and Christel Prudhomme
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2991–3036, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2991-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2991-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
CEMS_SurfaceFields_2022 dataset is a new set of high-resolution maps for land type (e.g. lake, forest), soil properties and population water needs at approximately 2 and 6 km at the Equator, covering Europe and the globe (excluding Antarctica). We describe what and how new high-resolution information can be used to create the dataset. The paper suggests that the dataset can be used as input for river, weather or other models, as well as for statistical descriptions of the region of interest.
Oscar M. Baez-Villanueva, Mauricio Zambrano-Bigiarini, Diego G. Miralles, Hylke E. Beck, Jonatan F. Siegmund, Camila Alvarez-Garreton, Koen Verbist, René Garreaud, Juan Pablo Boisier, and Mauricio Galleguillos
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1415–1439, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1415-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1415-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Various drought indices exist, but there is no consensus on which index to use to assess streamflow droughts. This study addresses meteorological, soil moisture, and snow indices along with their temporal scales to assess streamflow drought across hydrologically diverse catchments. Using data from 100 Chilean catchments, findings suggest that there is not a single drought index that can be used for all catchments and that snow-influenced areas require drought indices with larger temporal scales.
Laurence Hawker, Jeffrey Neal, James Savage, Thomas Kirkpatrick, Rachel Lord, Yanos Zylberberg, Andre Groeger, Truong Dang Thuy, Sean Fox, Felix Agyemang, and Pham Khanh Nam
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 539–566, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-539-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-539-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present a global flood model built using a new terrain data set and evaluated in the Central Highlands of Vietnam.
Leanne Archer, Jeffrey Neal, Paul Bates, Emily Vosper, Dereka Carroll, Jeison Sosa, and Daniel Mitchell
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 375–396, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-375-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-375-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We model hurricane-rainfall-driven flooding to assess how the number of people exposed to flooding changes in Puerto Rico under the 1.5 and 2 °C Paris Agreement goals. Our analysis suggests 8 %–10 % of the population is currently exposed to flooding on average every 5 years, increasing by 2 %–15 % and 1 %–20 % at 1.5 and 2 °C. This has implications for adaptation to more extreme flooding in Puerto Rico and demonstrates that 1.5 °C climate change carries a significant increase in risk.
Marvin Höge, Martina Kauzlaric, Rosi Siber, Ursula Schönenberger, Pascal Horton, Jan Schwanbeck, Marius Günter Floriancic, Daniel Viviroli, Sibylle Wilhelm, Anna E. Sikorska-Senoner, Nans Addor, Manuela Brunner, Sandra Pool, Massimiliano Zappa, and Fabrizio Fenicia
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5755–5784, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5755-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5755-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
CAMELS-CH is an open large-sample hydro-meteorological data set that covers 331 catchments in hydrologic Switzerland from 1 January 1981 to 31 December 2020. It comprises (a) daily data of river discharge and water level as well as meteorologic variables like precipitation and temperature; (b) yearly glacier and land cover data; (c) static attributes of, e.g, topography or human impact; and (d) catchment delineations. CAMELS-CH enables water and climate research and modeling at catchment level.
Dapeng Feng, Hylke Beck, Kathryn Lawson, and Chaopeng Shen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 2357–2373, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2357-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2357-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Powerful hybrid models (called δ or delta models) embrace the fundamental learning capability of AI and can also explain the physical processes. Here we test their performance when applied to regions not in the training data. δ models rivaled the accuracy of state-of-the-art AI models under the data-dense scenario and even surpassed them for the data-sparse one. They generalize well due to the physical structure included. δ models could be ideal candidates for global hydrologic assessment.
Youtong Rong, Paul Bates, and Jeffrey Neal
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3291–3311, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3291-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3291-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
A novel subgrid channel (SGC) model is developed for river–floodplain modelling, allowing utilization of subgrid-scale bathymetric information while performing computations on relatively coarse grids. By including adaptive artificial diffusion, potential numerical instability, which the original SGC solver had, in low-friction regions such as urban areas is addressed. Evaluation of the new SGC model through structured tests confirmed that the accuracy and stability have improved.
Mohammad Kazem Sharifian, Georges Kesserwani, Alovya Ahmed Chowdhury, Jeffrey Neal, and Paul Bates
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2391–2413, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2391-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2391-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes a new release of the LISFLOOD-FP model for fast and efficient flood simulations. It features a new non-uniform grid generator that uses multiwavelet analyses to sensibly coarsens the resolutions where the local topographic variations are smooth. Moreover, the model is parallelised on the graphical processing units (GPUs) to further boost computational efficiency. The performance of the model is assessed for five real-world case studies, noting its potential applications.
Nele Reyniers, Timothy J. Osborn, Nans Addor, and Geoff Darch
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1151–1171, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1151-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1151-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In an analysis of future drought projections for Great Britain based on the Standardised Precipitation Index and the Standardised Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index, we show that the choice of drought indicator has a decisive influence on the resulting projected changes in drought characteristics, although both result in increased drying. This highlights the need to understand the interplay between increasing atmospheric evaporative demand and drought impacts under a changing climate.
Paul D. Bates, James Savage, Oliver Wing, Niall Quinn, Christopher Sampson, Jeffrey Neal, and Andrew Smith
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 891–908, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-891-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-891-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present and validate a model that simulates current and future flood risk for the UK at high resolution (~ 20–25 m). We show that UK flood losses were ~ 6 % greater in the climate of 2020 compared to recent historical values. The UK can keep any future increase to ~ 8 % if all countries implement their COP26 pledges and net-zero ambitions in full. However, if only the COP26 pledges are fulfilled, then UK flood losses increase by ~ 23 %; and potentially by ~ 37 % in a worst-case scenario.
Yinxue Liu, Paul D. Bates, and Jeffery C. Neal
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 375–391, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-375-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-375-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we test two approaches for removing buildings and other above-ground objects from a state-of-the-art satellite photogrammetry topography product, ArcticDEM. Our best technique gives a 70 % reduction in vertical error, with an average difference of 1.02 m from a benchmark lidar for the city of Helsinki, Finland. When used in a simulation of rainfall-driven flooding, the bare-earth version of ArcticDEM yields a significant improvement in predicted inundation extent and water depth.
Sara Sadri, James S. Famiglietti, Ming Pan, Hylke E. Beck, Aaron Berg, and Eric F. Wood
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5373–5390, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5373-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5373-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
A farm-scale hydroclimatic machine learning framework to advise farmers was developed. FarmCan uses remote sensing data and farmers' input to forecast crop water deficits. The 8 d composite variables are better than daily ones for forecasting water deficit. Evapotranspiration (ET) and potential ET are more effective than soil moisture at predicting crop water deficit. FarmCan uses a crop-specific schedule to use surface or root zone soil moisture.
Jiawei Hou, Albert I. J. M. van Dijk, Hylke E. Beck, Luigi J. Renzullo, and Yoshihide Wada
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3785–3803, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3785-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3785-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We used satellite imagery to measure monthly reservoir water volumes for 6695 reservoirs worldwide for 1984–2015. We investigated how changing precipitation, streamflow, evaporation, and human activity affected reservoir water storage. Almost half of the reservoirs showed significant increasing or decreasing trends over the past three decades. These changes are caused, first and foremost, by changes in precipitation rather than by changes in net evaporation or dam release patterns.
Peter Hitchcock, Amy Butler, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Tim Stockdale, James Anstey, Dann Mitchell, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Tongwen Wu, Yixiong Lu, Daniele Mastrangelo, Piero Malguzzi, Hai Lin, Ryan Muncaster, Bill Merryfield, Michael Sigmond, Baoqiang Xiang, Liwei Jia, Yu-Kyung Hyun, Jiyoung Oh, Damien Specq, Isla R. Simpson, Jadwiga H. Richter, Cory Barton, Jeff Knight, Eun-Pa Lim, and Harry Hendon
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5073–5092, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5073-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5073-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes an experimental protocol focused on sudden stratospheric warmings to be carried out by subseasonal forecast modeling centers. These will allow for inter-model comparisons of these major disruptions to the stratospheric polar vortex and their impacts on the near-surface flow. The protocol will lead to new insights into the contribution of the stratosphere to subseasonal forecast skill and new approaches to the dynamical attribution of extreme events.
Maria Pregnolato, Andrew O. Winter, Dakota Mascarenas, Andrew D. Sen, Paul Bates, and Michael R. Motley
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 1559–1576, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-1559-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-1559-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The interaction of flow, structure and network is complex, and yet to be fully understood. This study aims to establish rigorous practices of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for modelling hydrodynamic forces on inundated bridges, and understanding the consequences of such impacts on the surrounding network. The objectives of this study are to model hydrodynamic forces as the demand on the bridge structure, to advance a structural reliability and network-level analysis.
Corwin J. Wright, Richard J. Hall, Timothy P. Banyard, Neil P. Hindley, Isabell Krisch, Daniel M. Mitchell, and William J. M. Seviour
Weather Clim. Dynam., 2, 1283–1301, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-1283-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-1283-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Major sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs) are some of the most dramatic events in the atmosphere and are believed to help cause extreme winter weather events such as the 2018 Beast from the East in Europe and North America. Here, we use unique data from the European Space Agency's new Aeolus satellite to make the first-ever measurements at a global scale of wind changes due to an SSW in the lower part of the atmosphere to help us understand how SSWs affect the atmosphere and surface weather.
Gang Zhao, Paul Bates, Jeffrey Neal, and Bo Pang
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5981–5999, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5981-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5981-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Design flood estimation is a fundamental task in hydrology. We propose a machine- learning-based approach to estimate design floods anywhere on the global river network. This approach shows considerable improvement over the index-flood-based method, and the average bias in estimation is less than 18 % for 10-, 20-, 50- and 100-year design floods. This approach is a valid method to estimate design floods globally, improving our prediction of flood hazard, especially in ungauged areas.
Oscar M. Baez-Villanueva, Mauricio Zambrano-Bigiarini, Pablo A. Mendoza, Ian McNamara, Hylke E. Beck, Joschka Thurner, Alexandra Nauditt, Lars Ribbe, and Nguyen Xuan Thinh
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5805–5837, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5805-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5805-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Most rivers worldwide are ungauged, which hinders the sustainable management of water resources. Regionalisation methods use information from gauged rivers to estimate streamflow over ungauged ones. Through hydrological modelling, we assessed how the selection of precipitation products affects the performance of three regionalisation methods. We found that a precipitation product that provides the best results in hydrological modelling does not necessarily perform the best for regionalisation.
Andrew J. Newman, Amanda G. Stone, Manabendra Saharia, Kathleen D. Holman, Nans Addor, and Martyn P. Clark
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5603–5621, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5603-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5603-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study assesses methods that estimate flood return periods to identify when we would obtain a large flood return estimate change if the method or input data were changed (sensitivities). We include an examination of multiple flood-generating models, which is a novel addition to the flood estimation literature. We highlight the need to select appropriate flood models for the study watershed. These results will help operational water agencies develop more robust risk assessments.
Peter T. La Follette, Adriaan J. Teuling, Nans Addor, Martyn Clark, Koen Jansen, and Lieke A. Melsen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5425–5446, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5425-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5425-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Hydrological models are useful tools that allow us to predict distributions and movement of water. A variety of numerical methods are used by these models. We demonstrate which numerical methods yield large errors when subject to extreme precipitation. As the climate is changing such that extreme precipitation is more common, we find that some numerical methods are better suited for use in hydrological models. Also, we find that many current hydrological models use relatively inaccurate methods.
John P. Bloomfield, Mengyi Gong, Benjamin P. Marchant, Gemma Coxon, and Nans Addor
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5355–5379, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5355-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5355-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Groundwater provides flow, known as baseflow, to surface streams and rivers. It is important as it sustains the flow of many rivers at times of water stress. However, it may be affected by water management practices. Statistical models have been used to show that abstraction of groundwater may influence baseflow. Consequently, it is recommended that information on groundwater abstraction is included in future assessments and predictions of baseflow.
Keirnan J. A. Fowler, Suwash Chandra Acharya, Nans Addor, Chihchung Chou, and Murray C. Peel
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 3847–3867, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3847-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3847-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents the Australian edition of the Catchment Attributes and Meteorology for Large-sample Studies (CAMELS) series of datasets. CAMELS-AUS comprises data for 222 unregulated catchments with long-term monitoring, combining hydrometeorological time series (streamflow and 18 climatic variables) with 134 attributes related to geology, soil, topography, land cover, anthropogenic influence and hydroclimatology. It is freely downloadable from https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.921850.
Yuting Yang, Tim R. McVicar, Dawen Yang, Yongqiang Zhang, Shilong Piao, Shushi Peng, and Hylke E. Beck
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3411–3427, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3411-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3411-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study developed an analytical ecohydrological model that considers three aspects of vegetation response to eCO2 (i.e., stomatal response, LAI response, and rooting depth response) to detect the impact of eCO2 on continental runoff over the past 3 decades globally. Our findings suggest a minor role of eCO2 on the global runoff changes, yet highlight the negative runoff–eCO2 response in semiarid and arid regions which may further threaten the limited water resource there.
James Shaw, Georges Kesserwani, Jeffrey Neal, Paul Bates, and Mohammad Kazem Sharifian
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3577–3602, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3577-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3577-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
LISFLOOD-FP has been extended with new shallow-water solvers – DG2 and FV1 – for modelling all types of slow- or fast-moving waves over any smooth or rough surface. Using GPU parallelisation, FV1 is faster than the simpler ACC solver on grids with millions of elements. The DG2 solver is notably effective on coarse grids where river channels are hard to capture, improving predicted river levels and flood water depths. This marks a new step towards real-world DG2 flood inundation modelling.
Noemi Vergopolan, Sitian Xiong, Lyndon Estes, Niko Wanders, Nathaniel W. Chaney, Eric F. Wood, Megan Konar, Kelly Caylor, Hylke E. Beck, Nicolas Gatti, Tom Evans, and Justin Sheffield
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1827–1847, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1827-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1827-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Drought monitoring and yield prediction often rely on coarse-scale hydroclimate data or (infrequent) vegetation indexes that do not always indicate the conditions farmers face in the field. Consequently, decision-making based on these indices can often be disconnected from the farmer reality. Our study focuses on smallholder farming systems in data-sparse developing countries, and it shows how field-scale soil moisture can leverage and improve crop yield prediction and drought impact assessment.
Oliver E. J. Wing, Andrew M. Smith, Michael L. Marston, Jeremy R. Porter, Mike F. Amodeo, Christopher C. Sampson, and Paul D. Bates
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 559–575, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-559-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-559-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Global flood models are difficult to validate. They generally output theoretical flood events of a given probability rather than an observed event that they can be tested against. Here, we adapt a US-wide flood model to enable the rapid simulation of historical flood events in order to more robustly understand model biases. For 35 flood events, we highlight the challenges of model validation amidst observational data errors yet evidence the increasing skill of large-scale models.
Hylke E. Beck, Ming Pan, Diego G. Miralles, Rolf H. Reichle, Wouter A. Dorigo, Sebastian Hahn, Justin Sheffield, Lanka Karthikeyan, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Robert M. Parinussa, Albert I. J. M. van Dijk, Jinyang Du, John S. Kimball, Noemi Vergopolan, and Eric F. Wood
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 17–40, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-17-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-17-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated the largest and most diverse set of surface soil moisture products ever evaluated in a single study. We found pronounced differences in performance among individual products and product groups. Our results provide guidance to choose the most suitable product for a particular application.
Gemma Coxon, Nans Addor, John P. Bloomfield, Jim Freer, Matt Fry, Jamie Hannaford, Nicholas J. K. Howden, Rosanna Lane, Melinda Lewis, Emma L. Robinson, Thorsten Wagener, and Ross Woods
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2459–2483, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2459-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2459-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We present the first large-sample catchment hydrology dataset for Great Britain. The dataset collates river flows, catchment attributes, and catchment boundaries for 671 catchments across Great Britain. We characterise the topography, climate, streamflow, land cover, soils, hydrogeology, human influence, and discharge uncertainty of each catchment. The dataset is publicly available for the community to use in a wide range of environmental and modelling analyses.
Vinícius B. P. Chagas, Pedro L. B. Chaffe, Nans Addor, Fernando M. Fan, Ayan S. Fleischmann, Rodrigo C. D. Paiva, and Vinícius A. Siqueira
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2075–2096, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2075-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2075-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new dataset for large-sample hydrological studies in Brazil. The dataset encompasses daily observed streamflow from 3679 gauges, as well as meteorological forcing for 897 selected catchments. It also includes 65 attributes covering topographic, climatic, hydrologic, land cover, geologic, soil, and human intervention variables. CAMELS-BR is publicly available and will enable new insights into the hydrological behavior of catchments in Brazil.
Cited articles
Scharffenberg, W.: Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS User's Manual, Tech. Rep., United States Army Corps of Engineers, available at: https://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-hms/documentation/HEC-HMS_Users_Manual_4.2.pdf (last access: 22 July 2021), 2016. a
Addor, N., Rössler, O., Köplin, N., Huss, M., Weingartner, R., and Seibert, J.: Robust changes and sources of uncertainty in the projected hydrological regimes of Swiss catchments, Water Resour. Res., 50, 7541–7562, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015549, 2014. a
Alfieri, L., Bisselink, B., Dottori, F., Naumann, G., de Roo, A., Salamon, P., Wyser, K., and Feyen, L.: Global projections of river flood risk in a warmer world, Earth's Future, 5, 171–182, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000485, 2017. a, b
Allen, G. H. and Pavelsky, T. M.: Global extent of rivers and streams, Science, 361, 585–588, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat0636, 2018. a
Bates, P. D., Horritt, M. S., and Fewtrell, T. J.: A simple inertial formulation of the shallow water equations for efficient two-dimensional flood inundation modelling, J. Hydrol., 387, 33–45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.03.027, 2010. a, b
Bates, P. D., Quinn, N., Sampson, C., Smith, A., Wing, O., Sosa, J., Savage, J., Olcese, G., Neal, J., Schumann, G., Giustarini, L., Coxon, G., Porter, J. R., Amodeo, M. F., Chu, Z., Lewis-Gruss, S., Freeman, N. B., Houser, T., Delgado, M., Hamidi, A., Bolliger, I., E. McCusker, K., Emanuel, K., Ferreira, C. M., Khalid, A., Haigh, I. D., Couasnon, A., E. Kopp, R., Hsiang, S., and Krajewski, W. F.: Combined Modeling of US Fluvial, Pluvial, and Coastal Flood Hazard Under Current and Future Climates, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR028 673, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028673, 2021. a
Beck, H. E., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., Levizzani, V., Schellekens, J., Miralles, D. G., Martens, B., and de Roo, A.: MSWEP: 3-hourly 0.25∘ global gridded precipitation (1979–2015) by merging gauge, satellite, and reanalysis data, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 589–615, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-589-2017, 2017. a, b
Beck, H. E., Wood, E. F., Pan, M., Fisher, C. K., Miralles, D. M., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., McVicar, T. R., and Adler, R. F.: MSWEP V2 global 3-hourly 0.1∘ precipitation: methodology and quantitative assessment, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 100, 473–500, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0138.1, 2019. a, b, c
Beck, H. E., Pan, M., Lin, P., Seibert, J., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., and Wood, E. F.: Global fully-distributed parameter regionalization based on observed streamflow from 4229 headwater catchments, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD031485, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031485, 2020. a
Bennett, A., Hamman, J., and Nijssen, B.: MetSim: A Python package for estimation and disaggregation of meteorological data, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2042, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02042, 2020. a
Betts, R. A., Alfieri, L., Bradshaw, C., Caesar, J., Feyen, L., Friedlingstein, P., Gohar, L., Koutroulis, A., Lewis, K., Morfopoulos, C., Papadimitriou, L., Richardson, K. J., Tsanis, I., and Wyser, K.: Changes in climate extremes, fresh water availability and vulnerability to food insecurity projected at 1.5 ∘C and 2 ∘C global warming with a higher-resolution global climate model, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 376, 20160452, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0452, 2018. a
Bevacqua, E., Maraun, D., Vousdoukas, M. I., Voukouvalas, E., Vrac, M., Mentaschi, L., and Widmann, M.: Higher probability of compound flooding from precipitation and storm surge in Europe under anthropogenic climate change, Science Advances, 5, eaaw5531, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw5531, 2019. a
Bohn, T. J., Livneh, B., Oyler, J. W., Running, S. W., Nijssen, B., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Global evaluation of MTCLIM and related algorithms for forcing of ecological and hydrological models, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 176, 38–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.03.003, 2013. a
Burnash, R., Ferral, R., and McGuire, R.: A generalized streamflow simulation system – Conceptual modeling for digital computers, Tech. Rep., US Department of Commerce, National Weather Service and State of California, Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, 1973. a
Cho, C., Li, R., Wang, S.-Y., Yoon, J.-H., and Gillies, R. R.: Anthropogenic footprint of climate change in the June 2013 northern India flood, Clim. Dynam., 46, 797–805, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2613-2, 2016. a
Clark, M., Slater, A., Rupp, D., Woods, R., Vrugt, J., Gupta, H., Wagener, T., and Hay, L.: Framework for Understanding Structural Errors (FUSE): A modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models, Water Resour. Res., 44, W00B02, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006735, 2008. a, b, c, d
Dadson, S. J., Ashpole, I., Harris, P., Davies, H. N., Clark, D. B., Blyth, E., and Taylor, C. M.: Wetland inundation dynamics in a model of land surface climate: Evaluation in the Niger inland delta region, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D23114, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD014474, 2010. a
Dankers, R. and Feyen, L.: Climate change impact on flood hazard in Europe: An assessment based on high-resolution climate simulations, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D19105, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009719, 2008. a
Dottori, F., Salamon, P., Bianchi, A., Alfieri, L., Hirpa, F. A., and Feyen, L.: Development and evaluation of a framework for global flood hazard mapping, Adv. Water Resour., 94, 87–102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2016.05.002, 2016. a
Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S., and Gupta, V.: Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall–runoff models, Water Resour. Res., 28, 1015–1031, https://doi.org/10.1029/91WR02985, 1992. a
Eisner, S., Flörke, M., Chamorro, A., Daggupati, P., Donnelly, C., Huang, J., Hundecha, Y., Koch, H., Kalugin, A., Krylenko, I., Mishra, V., Piniewski, M.,Samaniego, L., Seidou, O., Wallner, M., and Krysanova, V.: An ensemble analysis of climate change impacts on streamflow seasonality across 11 large river basins, Climatic Change, 141, 401–417, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1844-5, 2017. a
Falcone, J. A., Carlisle, D. M., Wolock, D. M., and Meador, M. R.: GAGES: A stream gage database for evaluating natural and altered flow conditions in the conterminous United States, Ecology, 91, 621–621, https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0889.1, 2010. a, b
Falter, D., Dung, N., Vorogushyn, S., Schröter, K., Hundecha, Y., Kreibich, H., Apel, H., Theisselmann, F., and Merz, B.: Continuous, large-scale simulation model for flood risk assessments: proof-of-concept, J. Flood Risk Manag., 9, 3–21, https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12105, 2016. a, b, c
Farr, T. G., Rosen, P. A., Caro, E., Crippen, R., Duren, R., Hensley, S., Kobrick, M., Paller, M., Rodriguez, E., Roth, L., Seal, D., Shaffer, S., Shimada, J., Umland, J., Werner, M., Oskin, M., Burbank, D., and Alsdorf, D.: The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, Rev. Geophys., 45, RG2004, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005RG000183, 2007. a
Fick, S. E. and Hijmans, R. J.: WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas, Int. J. Climatol., 37, 4302–4315, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086, 2017. a, b
Fleischmann, A., Siqueira, V., Paris, A., Collischonn, W., Paiva, R., Pontes, P., Crétaux, J.-F., Bergé-Nguyen, M., Biancamaria, S., Gosset, M., Calmant, S., and Tanimoun, B.: Modelling hydrologic and hydrodynamic processes in basins with large semi-arid wetlands, J. Hydrol., 561, 943–959, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.04.041, 2018. a
Frame, D. J., Rosier, S. M., Noy, I., Harrington, L. J., Carey-Smith, T., Sparrow, S. N., Stone, D. A., and Dean, S. M.: Climate change attribution and the economic costs of extreme weather events: a study on damages from extreme rainfall and drought, Climatic Change, 162, 781–797, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02729-y, 2020. a, b
Frieler, K., Lange, S., Piontek, F., Reyer, C. P. O., Schewe, J., Warszawski, L., Zhao, F., Chini, L., Denvil, S., Emanuel, K., Geiger, T., Halladay, K., Hurtt, G., Mengel, M., Murakami, D., Ostberg, S., Popp, A., Riva, R., Stevanovic, M., Suzuki, T., Volkholz, J., Burke, E., Ciais, P., Ebi, K., Eddy, T. D., Elliott, J., Galbraith, E., Gosling, S. N., Hattermann, F., Hickler, T., Hinkel, J., Hof, C., Huber, V., Jägermeyr, J., Krysanova, V., Marcé, R., Müller Schmied, H., Mouratiadou, I., Pierson, D., Tittensor, D. P., Vautard, R., van Vliet, M., Biber, M. F., Betts, R. A., Bodirsky, B. L., Deryng, D., Frolking, S., Jones, C. D., Lotze, H. K., Lotze-Campen, H., Sahajpal, R., Thonicke, K., Tian, H., and Yamagata, Y.: Assessing the impacts of 1.5 ∘C global warming – simulation protocol of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2b), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4321–4345, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4321-2017, 2017. a
Grimaldi, S., Schumann, G. J.-P., Shokri, A., Walker, J. P., and Pauwels, V. R. N.: Challenges, Opportunities, and Pitfalls for Global Coupled Hydrologic-Hydraulic Modeling of Floods, Water Resour. Res., 55, 5277–5300, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR024289, 2019. a, b, c
Guha-Sapir, D., Below, R., and Hoyois, P.: EM-DAT: International Disaster Database, CRED/UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium, available at: https://www.emdat.be (last access: 20 July 2021), 2016. a
Hall, D. K. and Riggs, G. A.: MODIS/Terra Snow Cover Monthly L3 Global 0.05Deg CMG, Version 6, Boulder, CO, USA, NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center, https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD10CM.006, 2015. a
Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S. A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S. V., Goetz, S. J., Loveland, T. R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C. O., and Townshend, J. R. G.: High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change, Science, 342, 850–853, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693, 2013. a
Hargreaves, G. H. and Samani, Z. A.: Reference crop evapotranspiration from temperature, Appl. Eng. Agric., 1, 96–99, https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.26773, 1985. a
Hattermann, F. F., Wortmann, M., Liersch, S., Toumi, R., Sparks, N., Genillard, C., Schröter, K., Steinhausen, M., Gyalai-Korpos, M., Máté, K., Hayes, B., del Rocío Rivas López, M., Rácz, T., Nielsen, M. R., Kaspersen, P. S., and Drews, M.: Simulation of flood hazard and risk in the Danube basin with the Future Danube Model, Climate Services, 12, 14–26, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2018.07.001, 2018. a
Hempel, S., Frieler, K., Warszawski, L., Schewe, J., and Piontek, F.: A trend-preserving bias correction – the ISI-MIP approach, Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 219–236, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-219-2013, 2013. a
Hengl, T., Mendes de Jesus, J., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Ruiperez Gonzalez, M., Kilibarda, M., Blagotić, A., Shangguan, W., Wright, M. N., Geng, X., Bauer-Marschallinger, B., Guevara, M. A., Vargas, R., MacMillan, R. A., Batjes, N. H., Leenaars, J. G. B., Ribeiro, E., Wheeler, I., Mantel, S., and Kempen, B.: SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning, PLOS ONE, 12, 1–40, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169748, 2017. a
Henn, B., Clark, M. P., Kavetski, D., and Lundquist, J. D.: Estimating mountain basin-mean precipitation from streamflow using Bayesian inference, Water Resour. Res., 51, 8012–8033, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016736, 2015. a, b, c
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Biavati, G., Horányi, A., Muñoz Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Rozum, I., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Dee, D., and Thépaut, J.-N.: ERA5 hourly data on single levels from 1979 to present, Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS) [data set], https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.adbb2d47, 2018. a, b
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.: The ERA5 Global Reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020. a
Hirabayashi, Y., Mahendran, R., Koirala, S., Konoshima, L., Yamazaki, D., Watanabe, S., Kim, H., and Kanae, S.: Global flood risk under climate change, Nat. Clim. Change, 3, 816–821, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1911, 2013. a
Hoch, J. M., Neal, J. C., Baart, F., van Beek, R., Winsemius, H. C., Bates, P. D., and Bierkens, M. F. P.: GLOFRIM v1.0 – A globally applicable computational framework for integrated hydrological–hydrodynamic modelling, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 3913–3929, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3913-2017, 2017. a
Hoch, J. M., Eilander, D., Ikeuchi, H., Baart, F., and Winsemius, H. C.: Evaluating the impact of model complexity on flood wave propagation and inundation extent with a hydrologic–hydrodynamic model coupling framework, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 1723–1735, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-1723-2019, 2019. a
Horritt, M. S., Mason, D. C., and Luckman, A. J.: Flood boundary delineation from Synthetic Aperture Radar imagery using a statistical active contour model, Int. J. Remote Sens., 22, 2489–2507, https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160116902, 2001. a
Hrachowitz, M. and Clark, M. P.: HESS Opinions: The complementary merits of competing modelling philosophies in hydrology, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 3953–3973, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-3953-2017, 2017. a
Hrachowitz, M., Savenije, H., Blöschl, G., McDonnell, J., Sivapalan, M., Pomeroy, J., Arheimer, B., Blume, T., Clark, M., Ehret, U., Fenicia, F., Freer, J., Gelfan, A., Gupta, H., Hughes, D., Hut, R., Montanari, A., Pande, S., Tetzlaff, D., Troch, P., Uhlenbrook, S., Wagener, T., Winsemius, H., Woods, R., Zehe, E., and Cudennec, C.: A decade of Predictions in Ungauged Basins (PUB)–a review, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 58, 1198–1255, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2013.803183, 2013. a
Ikeuchi, H., Hirabayashi, Y., Yamazaki, D., Kiguchi, M., Koirala, S., Nagano, T., Kotera, A., and Kanae, S.: Modeling complex flow dynamics of fluvial floods exacerbated by sea level rise in the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna Delta, Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 124011, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/124011, 2015. a, b
Johnston, C. A., Bubenzer, G. D., Lee, G. B., Madison, F. W., and Mc Henry, J. R.: Nutrient Trapping by Sediment Deposition in a Seasonally Flooded Lakeside Wetland, J. Environ. Qual., 13, 283–290, https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1984.00472425001300020022x, 1984. a
Kokkonen, T., Jakeman, A., Young, P., and Koivusalo, H.: Predicting daily flows in ungauged catchments: model regionalization from catchment descriptors at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, North Carolina, Hydrol. Process., 17, 2219–2238, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1329, 2003. a
Krieger, G., Moreira, A., Fiedler, H., Hajnsek, I., Werner, M., Younis, M., and Zink, M.: TanDEM-X: A Satellite Formation for High-Resolution SAR Interferometry, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 45, 3317–3341, https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2007.900693, 2007. a
Lange, S.: EartH2Observe, WFDEI and ERA-Interim data Merged and Bias-corrected for ISIMIP (EWEMBI), GFZ Data Services, https://doi.org/10.5880/pik.2016.004, 2016. a, b
Lehner, B. and Grill, G.: Global river hydrography and network routing: baseline data and new approaches to study the world's large river systems, Hydrol. Process., 27, 2171–2186, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9740, 2013 (data is available at: https://www.hydrosheds.org/, last access: 22 July 2021). a
Lehner, B., Döll, P., Alcamo, J., Henrichs, T., and Kaspar, F.: Estimating the impact of global change on flood and drought risks in Europe: a continental, integrated analysis, Climatic Change, 75, 273–299, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-6338-4, 2006. a
Liang, X., Lettenmaier, D. P., Wood, E. F., and Burges, S. J.: A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 99, 14415–14428, https://doi.org/10.1029/94JD00483, 1994. a
Lin, L., Wang, Z., Xu, Y., Zhang, X., Zhang, H., and Dong, W.: Additional Intensification of Seasonal Heat and Flooding Extreme Over China in a 2 ∘C Warmer World Compared to 1.5 ∘C, Earth's Future, 6, 968–978, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF000862, 2018. a
LISFLOOD-FP developers: LISFLOOD-FP v7.1 hydrodynamic model, Version 7.1.0, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4268656, 2020. a
Merz, R. and Blöschl, G.: Regionalisation of catchment model parameters, J. Hydrol., 287, 95–123, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.09.028, 2004. a
Mizukami, N., Clark, M. P., Sampson, K., Nijssen, B., Mao, Y., McMillan, H., Viger, R. J., Markstrom, S. L., Hay, L. E., Woods, R., Arnold, J. R., and Brekke, L. D.: mizuRoute version 1: a river network routing tool for a continental domain water resources applications, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2223–2238, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2223-2016, 2016. a, b
Mohammed, K., Islam, A. S., Islam, G. T., Alfieri, L., Bala, S., and Khan, M. J.: Extreme flows and water availability of the Brahmaputra River under 1.5 and 2 ∘C global warming scenarios, Climatic Change, 145, 159–175, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2073-2, 2017. a, b
Neal, J., Schumann, G., and Bates, P.: A subgrid channel model for simulating river hydraulics and floodplain inundation over large and data sparse areas, Water Resour. Res., 48, w11506, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR012514, 2012. a, b
Neal, J., Hawker, L., Savage, J., Durand, M., Bates, P., and Sampson, C.: Estimating River Channel Bathymetry in Large Scale Flood Inundation Models, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR028301, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028301, 2021. a
Ogden, R. and Thoms, M.: The importance of inundation to floodplain soil fertility in a large semi-arid river, SIL Proceedings, 1922–2010, 28, 744–749, https://doi.org/10.1080/03680770.2001.11901813, 2002. a
Pappenberger, F., Dutra, E., Wetterhall, F., and Cloke, H. L.: Deriving global flood hazard maps of fluvial floods through a physical model cascade, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 4143–4156, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-4143-2012, 2012. a
Parajka, J., Viglione, A., Rogger, M., Salinas, J. L., Sivapalan, M., and Blöschl, G.: Comparative assessment of predictions in ungauged basins – Part 1: Runoff-hydrograph studies, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1783–1795, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1783-2013, 2013. a
Pasquier, U., He, Y., Hooton, S., Goulden, M., and Hiscock, K. M.: An integrated 1D–2D hydraulic modelling approach to assess the sensitivity of a coastal region to compound flooding hazard under climate change, Nat. Hazards, 98, 915–937, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3462-1, 2019. a
Peel, M., Chiew, F., Western, A., and McMahon, T. A.: Extension of unimpaired monthly streamflow data and regionalisation of parameter values to estimate streamflow in ungauged catchments, Tech. Rep., prepared for the Australian National Land and Water Resources Audit. Cent. for Environ. Appl. Hydrol., Univ. of Melbourne, Australia, 2000. a, b
Pekel, J.-F., Cottam, A., Gorelick, N., and Belward, A. S.: High-resolution mapping of global surface water and its long-term changes, Nature, 540, 418, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20584, 2016. a
Perrin, C., Oudin, L., Andreassian, V., Rojas-Serna, C., Michel, C., and Mathevet, T.: Impact of limited streamflow data on the efficiency and the parameters of rainfall–runoff models, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 52, 131–151, https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.52.1.131, 2007. a
Pianosi, F. and Wagener, T.: Understanding the time-varying importance of different uncertainty sources in hydrological modelling using global sensitivity analysis, Hydrol. Process., 30, 3991–4003, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10968, 2016. a
Priestley, C. H. B. and Taylor, R. J.: On the Assessment of Surface Heat Flux and Evaporation Using Large-Scale Parameters, Mon. Weather Rev., 100, 81–92, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1972)100<0081:OTAOSH>2.3.CO;2, 1972. a
Rahman, M. M., Thompson, J. R., and Flower, R. J.: An enhanced SWAT wetland module to quantify hydraulic interactions between riparian depressional wetlands, rivers and aquifers, Environ. Modell. Softw., 84, 263–289, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.07.003, 2016. a
Rajib, A., Liu, Z., Merwade, V., Tavakoly, A. A., and Follum, M. L.: Towards a large-scale locally relevant flood inundation modeling framework using SWAT and LISFLOOD-FP, J. Hydrol., 581, 124 406, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124406, 2020. a, b, c
Ranger, N., Hallegatte, S., Bhattacharya, S., Bachu, M., Priya, S., Dhore, K., Rafique, F., Mathur, P., Naville, N., Henriet, F., Herweijer, C., Pohit S., and Corfee-Morlot, J.: An assessment of the potential impact of climate change on flood risk in Mumbai, Climatic Change, 104, 139–167, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9979-2, 2011. a
Samaniego, L., Kumar, R., and Attinger, S.: Multiscale parameter regionalization of a grid-based hydrologic model at the mesoscale, Water Resour. Res., 46, W05523, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007327, 2010. a
Sampson, C., Smith, A., Bates, P., Neal, J., Alfieri, L., and Freer, J.: A high-resolution global flood hazard model, Water Resour. Res., 51, 7358–7381, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR016954, 2015. a
Schaller, N., Kay, A. L., Lamb, R., Massey, N. R., Van Oldenborgh, G. J., Otto, F. E., Sparrow, S. N., Vautard, R., Yiou, P., Ashpole, I., Bowery, A., Crooks, S. M., Haustein, K., Huntingford, C., Ingram, W. J. Jones, R. G., Legg, T., Miller, J. Skeggs, J., Wallom, D., Weisheimer, A., Wilson, S., Stott P. A. and Allen, M. R.: Human influence on climate in the 2014 southern England winter floods and their impacts, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 627–634, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2927, 2016. a
Sharma, A., Wasko, C., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: If Precipitation Extremes Are Increasing, Why Aren't Floods?, Water Resour. Res., 54, 8545–8551, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023749, 2018. a, b
Sivapalan, M.: Prediction in ungauged basins: a grand challenge for theoretical hydrology, Hydrol. Process., 17, 3163–3170, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5155, 2003. a
Sorooshian, S., Duan, Q., and Gupta, V. K.: Calibration of rainfall–runoff models: Application of global optimization to the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting Model, Water Resour. Res., 29, 1185–1194, https://doi.org/10.1029/92WR02617, 1993. a
Sosa, J., Sampson, C., Smith, A., Neal, J., and Bates, P.: A toolbox to quickly prepare flood inundation models for LISFLOOD-FP simulations, Environ. Modell. Softw., 123, 104561, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.104561, 2020. a, b
Strahler, A. N.: Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology, Eos T. Am. Geophys. Un., 38, 913–920, https://doi.org/10.1029/TR038i006p00913, 1957. a
Thober, S., Kumar, R., Wanders, N., Marx, A., Pan, M., Rakovec, O., Samaniego, L., Sheffield, J., Wood, E. F., and Zink, M.: Multi-model ensemble projections of European river floods and high flows at 1.5, 2, and 3 degrees global warming, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 014 003, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9e35, 2018. a
Uhe, P.: pfuhe1/flood-cascade: Version 1, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4269581, 2020. a
Uhe, P., Mitchell, D., Bates, P., Sampson, C., Smith, A., and Islam, A.: Enhanced flood risk with 1.5 ∘C global warming in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna basin, Environ. Res. Lett., 14, 074 031, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab10ee, 2019. a
UNISDR: Making Development Sustainable: The Future of Disaster Risk Management, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, available at: https://www.undrr.org/publication/global-assessment-report-disaster-risk-reduction-2015 (last access: 22 July 2021), 2015. a
Wallemacq, P. and House, R.: Economic losses, poverty & disasters: 1998–2017, Tech. Rep., Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) and United Nations Office for Distaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), available at: https://www.preventionweb.net/go/61119 (last access: 22 July 2021), 2018. a
Winsemius, H. C., Van Beek, L. P. H., Jongman, B., Ward, P. J., and Bouwman, A.: A framework for global river flood risk assessments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1871–1892, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1871-2013, 2013. a, b
Winsemius, H. C., Aerts, J. C., Van Beek, L. P., Bierkens, M. F., Bouwman, A., Jongman, B., Kwadijk, J. C., Ligtvoet, W., Lucas, P. L., Van Vuuren, D. P., and Ward, P. J.: Global drivers of future river flood risk, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 381–385, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2893, 2016.
a
Yamazaki, D., Ikeshima, D., Tawatari, R., Yamaguchi, T., O'Loughlin, F., Neal, J., Sampson, C. C., Kanae, S., and Bates, P.: A high-accuracy map of global terrain elevations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 5844–5853, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL072874, 2017. a, b, c, d
Yamazaki, D., Ikeshima, D., Sosa, J., Bates, P. D., Allen, G. H., and Pavelsky, T. M.: MERIT Hydro: A High-Resolution Global Hydrography Map Based on Latest Topography Dataset, Water Resour. Res., 55, 5053–5073, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR024873, 2019. a, b
Zhao, F., Veldkamp, T. I. E., Frieler, K., Schewe, J., Ostberg, S., Willner, S., Schauberger, B., Gosling, S. N., Schmied, H. M., Portmann, F. T., Leng, G., Huang, M., Liu, X., Tang, Q., Hanasaki, N., Biemans, H., Gerten, D., Satoh, Y., Pokhrel, Y., Stacke, T., Ciais, P., Chang, J., Ducharne, A., Guimberteau, M., Wada, Y., Kim, H., and Yamazaki, D.: The critical role of the routing scheme in simulating peak river discharge in global hydrological models, Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 075003, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7250, 2017. a
Zscheischler, J., Westra, S., Van Den Hurk, B. J., Seneviratne, S. I., Ward, P. J., Pitman, A., AghaKouchak, A., Bresch, D. N., Leonard, M., Wahl, T., and Zhang, X.: Future climate risk from compound events, Nat. Clim. Change, 8, 469–477, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0156-3, 2018. a
Short summary
We present a cascade of models to compute high-resolution river flooding. This takes meteorological inputs, e.g., rainfall and temperature from observations or climate models, and takes them through a series of modeling steps. This is relevant to evaluating current day and future flood risk and impacts. The model framework uses global data sets, allowing it to be applied anywhere in the world.
We present a cascade of models to compute high-resolution river flooding. This takes...
