Abstract:Hydrological models have been developed in response to the need to understand the complex water cycle of the Earth and to assess its interaction with historical and future climate scenarios. In the global water sector of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project phase 2b (ISIMIP2b), six land surface models (LSMs), eight hydrological models (GHMs), and one dynamic vegetation model (DGVM) are contributing with transient simulations spanning from 1660 to 2300. The model simulations follow a common protocol and are driven by common bias adjusted climate model outputs combined with plausible socio-economic scenarios and representative concentration pathways. The main goal of this study is to highlight similarities and differences among these models in simulating the vertical water balance. The main similarity of these models consists in the water cycle simulation, even if the models have been developed for different purposes such as energy cycle (LSMs), water cycle (GHMs), or vegetation cycle (DGVM) simulation. In particular, we address the following research question: 1) what equations are used to compute water storages and water fluxes; 2) how different are the equations among the models; 3) how the equations were adjusted; 4) how many parameters are used by the models; 5) how often the parameters are used; 6) how similar or different are the parameters among the models. To this end, we apply a standard writing style of the water storages and water fluxes included in the models, to easily identify the similarities and differences among them. Most of the models include in their structure the canopy, soil, and snow storages, and almost half of them include the groundwater storage. Furthermore, we find that: 1) a model needs a very good documentation, this would help to easily identify and understand the equations in the code; 2) some modelers teams use common approaches resulting in similar equations of water storages or water fluxes, but different models structures still lead to different models results; 3) collaboration and communication among the modelers are necessary, on the one hand, for the realization of the models standard writing style, and on the other hand, for a better understanding of the models themselves, especially their strengths, limitations and results. Overall, our results (i) help to better explain the different models results and to attribute these to the differences in simulating specific processes; (ii) contribute to the remarkable efforts in creating a common protocol and a common input datasets for well-defined simulations; (iii) foster a better understanding of how the models work and finding new ways of improvement and development.

Present state of global wetland extent and wetland methane modelling: Methodology of a model intercomparison project (WETCHIMP)

Satellite-based modeling of wetland methane emissions on a global scale (SatWetCH4 1.0)

Evaluation of CH4MOD<sub>wetland</sub> and Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (TEM) used to estimate global CH<sub>4</sub> emissions from natural wetlands

Observational constraints reduce model spread but not uncertainty in global wetland methane emission estimates

Modeled production, oxidation, and transport processes of wetland methane emissions in temperate, boreal, and Arctic regions

Modelling methane emissions from natural wetlands: TRIPLEX-GHG model integration, sensitivity analysis, and calibration

Cold-Season Methane Fluxes Simulated by GCP-CH<sub>4</sub> Models

Development of the global dataset of Wetland Area and Dynamics for Methane Modeling (WAD2M)

Critical needs to close monitoring gaps in pan-tropical wetland CH4 emissions

Understanding Each Other's Models: an Introduction and a Standard Representation of 16 Global Water Models to Support Intercomparison, Improvement, and Communication

Quantifying Global Wetland Methane Emissions With In Situ Methane Flux Data and Machine Learning Approaches

An Attempt to Quantify the Impact of Changes in Wetland Extent on Methane Emissions on the Seasonal and Interannual Time Scales

Global Wetland Methane Emissions From 2001 to 2020: Magnitude, Dynamics and Controls

Global Wetland Contribution to 2000–2012 Atmospheric Methane Growth Rate Dynamics

Multimodel Estimate of the Global Terrestrial Water Balance: Setup and First Results

WetCH4: A Machine Learning-based Upscaling of Methane Fluxes of Northern Wetlands during 2016–2022

Similarities and Differences among Fifteen Global Water Models in Simulating the Vertical Water Balance

Underestimation of Methane Emissions From the Sudd Wetland: Unraveling the Impact of Wetland Extent Dynamics

An Integrative Model for Soil Biogeochemistry and Methane Processes: I. Model Structure and Sensitivity Analysis

Modelling Interranual Variability of Methane Emissions from a Temperate Degraded Peatland

Response of methane emissions from wetlands to the Last Glacial Maximum and an idealized Dansgaard–Oeschger climate event: insights from two models of different complexity