the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Submitted as: review and perspective paper 08 Jan 2021
Submitted as: review and perspective paper | 08 Jan 2021
Understanding each other's models: a standard representation of global water models to support improvement, intercomparison, and communication
- 1Institute of Physical Geography, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, 60438, Germany
- 2Senckenberg Leibniz Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (SBiK-F), Frankfurt am Main, 60325, Germany
- 3Department of Hydrology and Hydraulic Engineering, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, 1050, Belgium
- 4Key Laboratory of Water Cycle and Related Land Surface Processes, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China
- 5International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, 2361, Austria
- 6National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, 305–8506, Japan
- 7Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, 14473, Germany
- 8Institute for Mediterranean Studies, Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas, Rethymno, 74100, Greece
- 9School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
- 10Department Computational Hydrosystems, UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, 04318, Germany
- 11Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, 16500, Czech Republic
- 12Institute of Coastal Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Geesthacht, 21502, Germany
- 13College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China
- 14Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ/IPSL, Université Paris Saclay, Gif sur Yvette, 91191, France
- 15Department of Physical Geography, Utrecht University, Utrecht, 3508, The Netherlands
- 16ndian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, Palaj, Gandhinagar, 382355, India
- 17School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, 518055, China
- 18School of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Crete, Chania, 73100, Greece
- 19Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824, United States of America
- 20School of Geographic Sciences, East China Normal University, Shanghai, 200241, China
- 21Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research / Atmospheric Environmental Research, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, 82467, Germany
- 1Institute of Physical Geography, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, 60438, Germany
- 2Senckenberg Leibniz Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (SBiK-F), Frankfurt am Main, 60325, Germany
- 3Department of Hydrology and Hydraulic Engineering, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, 1050, Belgium
- 4Key Laboratory of Water Cycle and Related Land Surface Processes, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China
- 5International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, 2361, Austria
- 6National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, 305–8506, Japan
- 7Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, 14473, Germany
- 8Institute for Mediterranean Studies, Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas, Rethymno, 74100, Greece
- 9School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
- 10Department Computational Hydrosystems, UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, 04318, Germany
- 11Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, 16500, Czech Republic
- 12Institute of Coastal Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Geesthacht, 21502, Germany
- 13College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China
- 14Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ/IPSL, Université Paris Saclay, Gif sur Yvette, 91191, France
- 15Department of Physical Geography, Utrecht University, Utrecht, 3508, The Netherlands
- 16ndian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, Palaj, Gandhinagar, 382355, India
- 17School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, 518055, China
- 18School of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Crete, Chania, 73100, Greece
- 19Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824, United States of America
- 20School of Geographic Sciences, East China Normal University, Shanghai, 200241, China
- 21Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research / Atmospheric Environmental Research, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, 82467, Germany
Abstract. Global 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 modeling 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 state-of-the-art GWMs are designed. We analyze water storage compartments, water flows, and human water use sectors included in 16 GWMs 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 further enhance model improvement, intercomparison, and communication. In this study, WaterGAP2 used the highest number of water storage compartments, 11, and CWatM used 10 compartments. Seven models used six compartments, while three models (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 used by humans for the irrigation sector. We conclude that even though hydrologic processes are often based on similar equations, in the end, these equations have been adjusted or have used different values for specific parameters or specific variables. Our results highlight that the predictive uncertainty of GWMs can be reduced through improvements of the existing hydrologic processes, implementation of new processes in the models, and high-quality input data.
- Preprint
(1130 KB) -
Supplement
(1755 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Camelia-Eliza Telteu et al.
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.
-
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.
-
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
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.
-
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.
-
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
Camelia-Eliza Telteu et al.
Model code and software
CESM1.2.2_CLM4.5_freeze_ISIMIP2b (Version CESM1.2.2 - CLM4.5) W. Thiery https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4277137
ESCOMP/CTSM: Update documentation for release-clm5.0 branch, and fix issues with no-anthro surface dataset creation (Version release-clm5.0.34) CTSM Development Team https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3779821
Community Water Model (CwatM) (Version v1.04) P. Burek, M. Smilovic, Y. Satoh, T. Kahil, L. Guillaumot, , T. Tang, P. Greve, Y. and Wada, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3361478
H08 Version 20190101 N. Hanasaki https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4263375
mesoscale Hydrologic Model (Version v5.8) L. Samaniego, R. Kumar, J. Mai, M. Zink, S. Thober, M. Cuntz, O.Rakovec, D. Schäfer, M. Schrön, J. Brenner, C. M. Demirel, M. Kaluza, B. Langenberg, S. Stisen, S. and Attinger, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1069203
Executable research compendia (ERC)
PCR-GLOBWB 2 input files version 2017_11_beta_1 (Version v_2017_11_beta_1) E. Sutanudjaja, R. van Beek, N. Wanders, Y. Wada, J. Bosmans, N. Drost, R. van der Ent, I. de Graaf, J. Hoch, K. de Jong, D. Karssenberg, P. López López, S. Peßenteiner, O. Schmitz, M. Straatsma, E. Vannametee, D. Wisser, M. and Bierkens https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1045339
Water And ecosYstem Simulator (Version v1.0) G. Mao and J. Liu https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4255008
Camelia-Eliza Telteu et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 676 | 251 | 12 | 939 | 117 | 9 | 7 |
- HTML: 676
- PDF: 251
- XML: 12
- Total: 939
- Supplement: 117
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
2 citations as recorded by crossref.
- The global water resources and use model WaterGAP v2.2d: model description and evaluation H. Müller Schmied et al. 10.5194/gmd-14-1037-2021
- Uncertainty of simulated groundwater recharge at different global warming levels: a global-scale multi-model ensemble study R. Reinecke et al. 10.5194/hess-25-787-2021