This paper is the outcome of a community initiative to identify major unsolved scientific problems in hydrology motivated by a need for stronger harmonisation of research efforts. The procedure involved a public consultation through online media, followed by two workshops through which a large number of potential science questions were collated, prioritised, and synthesised. In spite of the diversity of the participants (230 scientists in total), the process revealed much about community priorities and the state of our science: a preference for continuity in research questions rather than radical departures or redirections from past and current work. Questions remain focused on the process-based understanding of hydrological variability and causality at all space and time scales. Increased attention to environmental change drives a new emphasis on understanding how change propagates across interfaces within the hydrological system and across disciplinary boundaries. In particular, the expansion of the human footprint raises a new set of questions related to human interactions with nature and water cycle feedbacks in the context of complex water management problems. We hope that this reflection and synthesis of the 23 unsolved problems in hydrology will help guide research efforts for some years to come. ARTICLE HISTORY

Better understanding of which processes generate floods in a catchment can improve flood frequency analysis and potentially climate change impacts assessment. However, current flood classification methods are either not transferable across locations or do not provide event‐based information. We therefore developed a location‐independent, event‐based flood classification methodology that is applicable in different climates and returns a classification of all flood events, including extreme ones. We use precipitation time series and very simply modelled soil moisture and snowmelt as inputs for a decision tree. A total of 113,635 events in 4155 catchments worldwide were classified into one of five hydro‐climatological flood generating processes: short rain, long rain, excess rainfall, snowmelt and a combination of rain and snow. The new classification was tested for its robustness and evaluated with available information; these two tests are often lacking in current flood classification approaches. According to the evaluation, the classification is mostly successful and indicates excess rainfall as the most common dominant process. However, the dominant process is not very informative in most catchments, as there is a high at‐site variability in flood generating processes. This is particularly relevant for the estimation of extreme floods which diverge from their usual flood generation pattern, especially in the United Kingdom, Northern France, Southeastern United States, and India.

Thus, the need to classify these processes has long been recognized and several studies have developed flood classification approaches (e.g.,

Our ability to fully and reliably observe and simulate the terrestrial hydrologic cycle is limited, and in‐depth experimental studies cover only a tiny fraction of our landscape. On medieval maps, unexplored regions were shown as images of dragons—displaying a fear of the unknown. With time, cartographers dared to leave such areas blank, thus inviting explorations of what lay beyond the edge of current knowledge. In hydrology, we are still in a phase where maps of variables more likely contain hydrologic dragons than blank areas, which would acknowledge a lack of knowledge. In which regions is our ability to extrapolate well developed, and where is it poor? Where are available data sets informative, and where are they just poor approximations of likely system properties? How do we best identify and acknowledge these gaps to better understand and reduce the uncertainty in characterizing hydrologic systems? The accumulation of knowledge has been postulated as a fundamental mark of scientific advancement. In hydrology, we lack an effective strategy for knowledge accumulation as a community, and insufficiently focus on highlighting knowledge gaps where they exist. We propose two strategies to rectify these deficiencies. Firstly, the use of open and shared perceptual models to develop, debate, and test hypotheses. Secondly, improved knowledge accumulation in hydrology through a stronger focus on knowledge extraction and integration from available peer‐reviewed articles. The latter should include metadata to tag journal articles complemented by a common hydro‐meteorological database that would enable searching, organizing and analyzing previous studies in a hydrologically meaningful manner. This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Planning Water Science of Water > Hydrological Processes Science of Water > Methods

No abstract

Drought is one of the major threats to societies in Sub-Saharan Africa, as the majority of the population highly depends on rain-fed subsistence agriculture and traditional water supply systems. Hot-spot areas of potential drought impact need to be identified to reduce risk and adapt a growing population to a changing environment. This paper presents the Blended Drought Index (BDI), an integrated tool for estimating the impact of drought as a climate-induced hazard in the semi-arid Cuvelai-Basin of Angola and Namibia. It incorporates meteorological and agricultural drought characteristics that impair the population's ability to ensure food and water security. The BDI uses a copula function to combine common standardized drought indicators that describe precipitation, evapotranspiration, soil moisture and vegetation conditions. Satellite remote sensing products were processed to analyze drought frequency, severity and duration. As the primary result, an integrated drought hazard map was built to spatially depict drought hot-spots. Temporally, the BDI correlates well with millet/sorghum yield (r = 0.51) and local water consumption (r = −0.45) and outperforms conventional indicators. In the light of a drought's multifaceted impact on society, the BDI is a simple and transferable tool to identify areas highly threatened by drought in an integrated manner.

Abstract. Nowadays color in scientific visualizations is standard and extensively used to group, highlight or delineate different parts of data in visualizations. The rainbow color map (also known as jet color map) is famous for its appealing use of the full visual spectrum with impressive changes in chroma and luminance. Besides attracting attention, science has for decades criticized the rainbow color map for its non-linear and erratic change of hue and luminance along the data variation. The missed uniformity causes a misrepresentation of data values and flaws in science communication. The rainbow color map is scientifically incorrect and hardly decodable for a considerable number of people due to color vision deficiency (CVD) or other vision impairments. Here we aim to raise awareness of how widely used the rainbow color map still is in hydrology. To this end, we perform a paper survey scanning for color issues in around 1000 scientific publications in three different journals including papers published between 2005 and 2020. In this survey, depending on the journal, 16 %–24 % of the publications have a rainbow color map and around the same ratio of papers (18 %–29 %) uses red–green elements often in a way that color is the only possibility to decode the visualized groups of data. Given these shares, there is a 99.6 % chance to pick at least one visual problematic publication in 10 randomly chosen papers from our survey. To overcome the use of the rainbow color maps in science, we propose some tools and techniques focusing on improvement of typical visualization types in hydrological science. We give guidance on how to avoid, improve and trust color in a proper and scientific way. Finally, we outline an approach how the rainbow color map flaws should be communicated across different status groups in science.

Moving the study domain in hydrology to larger and larger regions leaves us with significant knowledge gaps because we are unable to observe the hydrology of many parts of the world, while in-depth hydrologic studies cover only a fraction of our landscape. On medieval maps, knowledge gaps were shown as images of lions. How do we best acknowledge and reduce these gaps in hydrology, i.e. our hydrologic lions? The accumulation of knowledge has been postulated as the fundamental mark of scientific advancement by some philosophers of science. In hydrology, knowledge accumulation has been somewhat fragmented, left as a pursuit for (often brilliant) individuals rather than emphasised as a necessary focus for the research community. Our knowledge of a region’s hydrology originates from available observations. However, the ability of observations to reliably characterise hydrological phenomena is limited, and large areas of the globe lack detailed observations. In this commentary we propose two strategies to rectify these deficiencies. First, the use of shared perceptual models as ways to capture, debate and test our experience with different hydrologic systems. Second, improved knowledge accumulation in hydrology by more strongly focusing on knowledge extraction from available historical articles. This effort should include the addition of meta-data to tag hydrologic journal articles and by developing a related hydrological database that would enable searching, organizing and analysing previous studies in a hydrologically meaningful manner.