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

Saudi Rainfall (SaRa): Hourly 0.1° Gridded Rainfall (1979–Present) for Saudi Arabia via Machine Learning Fusion of Satellite and Model Data
Xuetong Wang, Raied S. Alharbi, Oscar M. Baez-Villanueva, Amy Green, Matthew F. McCabe, Yoshihide Wada, Albert I. J. M. Van Dijk, Muhammad A. Abid, and Hylke Beck
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-254,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-254, 2025
Short summary
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

Related subject area

Hydrology
Graphical representation of global water models
Hannes Müller Schmied, Simon Newland Gosling, Marlo Garnsworthy, Laura Müller, Camelia-Eliza Telteu, Atiq Kainan Ahmed, Lauren Seaby Andersen, Julien Boulange, Peter Burek, Jinfeng Chang, He Chen, Lukas Gudmundsson, Manolis Grillakis, Luca Guillaumot, Naota Hanasaki, Aristeidis Koutroulis, Rohini Kumar, Guoyong Leng, Junguo Liu, Xingcai Liu, Inga Menke, Vimal Mishra, Yadu Pokhrel, Oldrich Rakovec, Luis Samaniego, Yusuke Satoh, Harsh Lovekumar Shah, Mikhail Smilovic, Tobias Stacke, Edwin Sutanudjaja, Wim Thiery, Athanasios Tsilimigkras, Yoshihide Wada, Niko Wanders, and Tokuta Yokohata
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2409–2425, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2409-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2409-2025, 2025
Short summary
LM4-SHARC v1.0: resolving the catchment-scale soil–hillslope aquifer–river continuum for the GFDL Earth system modeling framework
Minki Hong, Nathaniel Chaney, Sergey Malyshev, Enrico Zorzetto, Anthony Preucil, and Elena Shevliakova
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2275–2301, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2275-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2275-2025, 2025
Short summary
Selecting a conceptual hydrological model using Bayes' factors computed with replica-exchange Hamiltonian Monte Carlo and thermodynamic integration
Damian N. Mingo, Remko Nijzink, Christophe Ley, and Jack S. Hale
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1709–1736, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1709-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1709-2025, 2025
Short summary
The Water Table Model (WTM) (v2.0.1): coupled groundwater and dynamic lake modelling
Kerry L. Callaghan, Andrew D. Wickert, Richard Barnes, and Jacqueline Austermann
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1463–1486, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1463-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1463-2025, 2025
Short summary
Modelling rainfall with a Bartlett–Lewis process: pyBL (v1.0.0), a Python software package and an application with short records
Chi-Ling Wei, Pei-Chun Chen, Chien-Yu Tseng, Ting-Yu Dai, Yun-Ting Ho, Ching-Chun Chou, Christian Onof, and Li-Pen Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1357–1373, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1357-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1357-2025, 2025
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.
Share