Significant uncertainty in global scale hydrological modeling from precipitation data errors

Abstract

Keywords:Global hydrological modeling Forcing uncertainty Model calibration Parameter uncertainty s u m m a r yIn the past decades significant progress has been made in the fitting of hydrologic models to data. Most of this work has focused on simple, CPU-efficient, lumped hydrologic models using discharge, water table depth, soil moisture, or tracer data from relatively small river basins. In this paper, we focus on largescale hydrologic modeling and analyze the effect of parameter and rainfall data uncertainty on simulated discharge dynamics with the global hydrologic model PCR-GLOBWB. We use three rainfall data products; the CFSR reanalysis, the ERA-Interim reanalysis, and a combined ERA-40 reanalysis and CRU dataset. Parameter uncertainty is derived from Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) using monthly discharge data from five of the largest river systems in the world. Our results demonstrate that the default parameterization of PCR-GLOBWB, derived from global datasets, can be improved by calibrating the model against monthly discharge observations. Yet, it is difficult to find a single parameterization of PCR-GLOBWB that works well for all of the five river basins considered herein and shows consistent performance during both the calibration and evaluation period. Still there may be possibilities for regionalization based on catchment similarities. Our simulations illustrate that parameter uncertainty constitutes only a minor part of predictive uncertainty. Thus, the apparent dichotomy between simulations of global-scale hydrologic behavior and actual data cannot be resolved by simply increasing the model complexity of PCR-GLOBWB and resolving sub-grid processes. Instead, it would be more productive to improve the characterization of global rainfall amounts at spatial resolutions of 0.5°and smaller.

In Quest of Calibration Density and Consistency in Hydrologic Modeling: Distributed Parameter Calibration against Streamflow Characteristics

“…Second, this calibration strategy and resulted parameters are inevitably forcing-dependent, because the calibrated parameters can compensate forcing biases and model structure problems (Blöschl et al, 2007;Bock et al, 2016;Elsner et al, 2014;Merz et al, 2011;Weiland et al, 2015). This would reduce the skill of the model in replicating results outside of calibration conditions and increase the potential for equifinality of parameter sets and higher model uncertainty.…”

Toward continental hydrologic–hydrodynamic modeling in South America

“…Inaccuracies in runoff estimation from GHMs and LSMs may be first attributed to the uncertainty in global satellite precipitation products (Tian and PetersLidard, 2010;Sperna Weiland et al, 2015), but several studies have shown considerable differences between model outputs even when using the same meteorological forcing, given the lack of knowledge about runoff generation processes and 30 deficiencies in parameter estimation (e.g., Haddeland et al, 2011;Gudmundsson et al, 2012;Zhou et al, 2012;Beck et al, 2017a). In particular, calibration has been found to have the largest impact on storage fluxes, evapotranspiration and Hydrol.…”

Pan-European Calculation of Hydrologic Stress Metrics in Rivers: A First Assessment with Potential Connections to Ecological Status

“…In this study we used simulated flows instead of measured flows to provide a spatially consistent picture that is not impeded by the heterogeneity of observed flow data. As a global hydrologic model, PCR-GLOBWB requires a wealth of input data to characterize global or continental variation in, amongst others, land-use, soil type, elevation, climatic conditions and groundwater table depths [57]. All these datasets are accompanied by a high degree of uncertainty, which compromises the performance of global hydrologic models [58].…”