Articles | Volume 9, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-283-2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-283-2016
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
26 Jan 2016
Methods for assessment of models |  | 26 Jan 2016

The GEWEX LandFlux project: evaluation of model evaporation using tower-based and globally gridded forcing data

M. F. McCabe, A. Ershadi, C. Jimenez, D. G. Miralles, D. Michel, and E. F. Wood

Related authors

GRASS COVER, TREE DENSITY, AND LEAF DEVELOPMENT OF MEDITERRANEAN ORCHARDS FROM HIGH RESOLUTION DATA
P. Rouault, D. Courault, G. Pouget, F. Flamain, R. Lopez-Lozano, C. Doussan, M. Debolini, and M. McCabe
Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XLVIII-1-W2-2023, 1531–1536, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVIII-1-W2-2023-1531-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVIII-1-W2-2023-1531-2023, 2023
INTRA-FIELD CROP YIELD VARIABILITY BY ASSIMILATING CUBESAT LAI IN THE APSIM CROP MODEL
M. G. Ziliani, M. U. Altaf, B. Aragon, R. Houborg, T. E. Franz, Y. Lu, J. Sheffield, I. Hoteit, and M. F. McCabe
Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XLIII-B3-2022, 1045–1052, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B3-2022-1045-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLIII-B3-2022-1045-2022, 2022
Mapping groundwater abstractions from irrigated agriculture: big data, inverse modeling, and a satellite–model fusion approach
Oliver Miguel López Valencia, Kasper Johansen, Bruno José Luis Aragón Solorio, Ting Li, Rasmus Houborg, Yoann Malbeteau, Samer AlMashharawi, Muhammad Umer Altaf, Essam Mohammed Fallatah, Hari Prasad Dasari, Ibrahim Hoteit, and Matthew Francis McCabe
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 5251–5277, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5251-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5251-2020, 2020
Short summary
PREDICTING BIOMASS AND YIELD AT HARVEST OF SALT-STRESSED TOMATO PLANTS USING UAV IMAGERY
K. Johansen, M. J. L. Morton, Y. Malbeteau, B. Aragon, S. Al-Mashharawi, M. Ziliani, Y. Angel, G. Fiene, S. Negrao, M. A. A. Mousa, M. A. Tester, and M. F. McCabe
Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XLII-2-W13, 407–411, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W13-407-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W13-407-2019, 2019
Inferring soil salinity in a drip irrigation system from multi-configuration EMI measurements using adaptive Markov chain Monte Carlo
Khan Zaib Jadoon, Muhammad Umer Altaf, Matthew Francis McCabe, Ibrahim Hoteit, Nisar Muhammad, Davood Moghadas, and Lutz Weihermüller
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 5375–5383, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5375-2017,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5375-2017, 2017
Short summary

Related subject area

Hydrology
STORM v.2: A simple, stochastic rainfall model for exploring the impacts of climate and climate change at and near the land surface in gauged watersheds
Manuel F. Rios Gaona, Katerina Michaelides, and Michael Bliss Singer
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5387–5412, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5387-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5387-2024, 2024
Short summary
Fluvial flood inundation and socio-economic impact model based on open data
Lukas Riedel, Thomas Röösli, Thomas Vogt, and David N. Bresch
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5291–5308, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5291-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5291-2024, 2024
Short summary
RoGeR v3.0.5 – a process-based hydrological toolbox model in Python
Robin Schwemmle, Hannes Leistert, Andreas Steinbrich, and Markus Weiler
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5249–5262, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5249-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5249-2024, 2024
Short summary
Coupling a large-scale glacier and hydrological model (OGGM v1.5.3 and CWatM V1.08) – towards an improved representation of mountain water resources in global assessments
Sarah Hanus, Lilian Schuster, Peter Burek, Fabien Maussion, Yoshihide Wada, and Daniel Viviroli
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5123–5144, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5123-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5123-2024, 2024
Short summary
An open-source refactoring of the Canadian Small Lakes Model for estimates of evaporation from medium-sized reservoirs
M. Graham Clark and Sean K. Carey
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4911–4922, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4911-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4911-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Adler, R. F., Huffman, G. J., Chang, A., Ferraro, R., Xie, P. P., Janowiak, J., Rudolf, B., Schneider, U., Curtis, S., Bolvin, D., Gruber, A., Susskind, J., Arkin, P., and Nelkin, E.: The version-2 global precipitation climatology project (GPCP) monthly precipitation analysis (1979–present), J. Hydrometeorol., 4, 1147–1167, 2003.
Allen, R. G.: Using the FAO-56 dual crop coefficient method over an irrigated region as part of an evapotranspiration intercomparison study, J. Hydrol., 229, 27–41, 2000.
Allen, R. G., Tasumi, M., and Trezza, R.: Satellite-Based Energy Balance for Mapping Evapotranspiration with Internalized Calibration (METRIC)-Model, J. Irrig. Drain. E., 133, 380–394, 2007.
Armstrong, R. L., Brodzik, M. J., Knowles, K., and Savoie, M.: Global monthly EASE-Grid snow water equivalent climatology, National Snow and Ice Data Center, Digital media, Boulder, CO, USA, 2005.
Badgley, G., Fisher, J. B., Jiménez, C., Tu, K. P., and Vinukollu, R.: On uncertainty in global terrestrial evapotranspiration estimates from choice of input forcing datasets, J. Hydrometeorol., 16, 1449–1455, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-14-0040.1, 2015.
Download
Short summary
In an effort to develop a global terrestrial evaporation product, four models were forced using both a tower and grid-based data set. Comparisons against flux-tower observations from different biome and land cover types show considerable inter-model variability and sensitivity to forcing type. Results suggest that no single model is able to capture expected flux patterns and response. It is suggested that a multi-model ensemble is likely to provide a more stable long-term flux estimate.