GMD perspective: The quest to improve the evaluation of groundwater representation in continental- to global-scale models
-
Published:2021-12-13
Issue:12
Volume:14
Page:7545-7571
-
ISSN:1991-9603
-
Container-title:Geoscientific Model Development
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Geosci. Model Dev.
Author:
Gleeson TomORCID, Wagener ThorstenORCID, Döll PetraORCID, Zipper Samuel C.ORCID, West Charles, Wada YoshihideORCID, Taylor RichardORCID, Scanlon Bridget, Rosolem RafaelORCID, Rahman Shams, Oshinlaja NurudeenORCID, Maxwell ReedORCID, Lo Min-HuiORCID, Kim HyungjunORCID, Hill MaryORCID, Hartmann AndreasORCID, Fogg GrahamORCID, Famiglietti James S., Ducharne Agnès, de Graaf IngeORCID, Cuthbert MarkORCID, Condon LauraORCID, Bresciani EtienneORCID, Bierkens Marc F. P.ORCID
Abstract
Abstract. Continental- to global-scale hydrologic and land surface models increasingly include representations of the groundwater system. Such large-scale models are essential for examining, communicating, and understanding the dynamic interactions between the Earth system above and below the land surface as well as the opportunities and limits of groundwater resources. We argue that both large-scale and regional-scale groundwater models have utility, strengths, and limitations, so continued modeling at both scales is essential and mutually beneficial. A crucial quest is how to evaluate the realism, capabilities, and performance of large-scale groundwater models given their modeling purpose of addressing large-scale science or sustainability questions as well as limitations in data availability and commensurability. Evaluation should identify if, when, or where large-scale models achieve their purpose or where opportunities for improvements exist so that such models better achieve their purpose. We suggest that reproducing the spatiotemporal details of regional-scale models and matching local data are not relevant goals. Instead, it is important to decide on reasonable model expectations regarding when a large-scale model is performing “well enough”
in the context of its specific purpose. The decision of reasonable
expectations is necessarily subjective even if the evaluation criteria are
quantitative. Our objective is to provide recommendations for improving the
evaluation of groundwater representation in continental- to global-scale
models. We describe current modeling strategies and evaluation practices,
and we subsequently discuss the value of three evaluation strategies: (1) comparing model outputs with available observations of groundwater levels or
other state or flux variables (observation-based evaluation), (2) comparing
several models with each other with or without reference to actual
observations (model-based evaluation), and (3) comparing model behavior with
expert expectations of hydrologic behaviors in particular regions or at
particular times (expert-based evaluation). Based on evolving practices in
model evaluation as well as innovations in observations, machine learning,
and expert elicitation, we argue that combining observation-, model-, and
expert-based model evaluation approaches, while accounting for
commensurability issues, may significantly improve the realism of
groundwater representation in large-scale models, thus advancing our ability
for quantification, understanding, and prediction of crucial Earth science
and sustainability problems. We encourage greater community-level
communication and cooperation on this quest, including among global
hydrology and land surface modelers, local to regional hydrogeologists, and
hydrologists focused on model development and evaluation.
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference218 articles.
1. Al-Yaari, A., Ducharne, A., Cheruy, F., Crow, W. T., and Wigneron, J. P.:
Satellite-based soil moisture provides missing link between summertime
precipitation and surface temperature biases in CMIP5 simulations over
conterminous United States, Scientific Reports, 9, 1657,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-38309-5, 2019. 2. Anderson, M. P., Woessner, W. W., and Hunt, R. J.: Applied groundwater modeling, 2nd edn., Academic Press, San Diego, 2015. 3. Anderson, R. G., Lo, M.-H., Swenson, S., Famiglietti, J. S., Tang, Q., Skaggs, T. H., Lin, Y.-H., and Wu, R.-J.: Using satellite-based estimates of evapotranspiration and groundwater changes to determine anthropogenic water fluxes in land surface models, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3021–3031, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3021-2015, 2015. 4. Alley, W. M. and Konikow, L. F. Bringing GRACE down to earth, Groundwater, 53, 826–829, 2015. 5. Anyah, R. O., Weaver, C. P., Miguez-Macho, G., Fan, Y., and Robock, A.
Incorporating water table dynamics in climate modeling: 3. Simulated
groundwater influence on coupled land-atmosphere variability, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D07103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009087, 2008.
Cited by
42 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|