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.

Global evaluation of simulated high- and low-flows from 23 macro-scale models

Global Evaluation of Simulated High and Low Flows from 23 Macroscale Models

Uncertainty in High and Low Flows Due to Model Structure and Parameter Errors

Assessment of Extreme Flows and Uncertainty under Climate Change: Disentangling the Uncertainty Contribution of Representative Concentration Pathways, Global Climate Models and Internal Climate Variability

Modeling the Impact of Climate Change on Low Flows in Xiangjiang River Basin with Bayesian Averaging Method

Uncertainty in Future High Flows in Qiantang River Basin, China

A comparative assessment of CMIP5 and CMIP6 in hydrological responses of the Yellow River Basin, China

Improved Simulation of Peak Flows under Climate Change: Postprocessing or Composite Objective Calibration?

Global evaluation of runoff simulation from climate, hydrological and land surface models

Global hydrological models continue to overestimate river discharge

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

The Critical Role of the Routing Scheme in Simulating Peak River Discharge in Global Hydrological Models

How well do the multi-satellite and atmospheric reanalysis products perform in hydrological modelling

Cross‐scale intercomparison of climate change impacts simulated by regional and global hydrological models in eleven large river basins

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

Impact of Runoff Schemes on Global Flow Discharge: A Comprehensive Analysis Using the Noah-MP and CaMa-Flood Models

Impact Assessment of Multiple Uncertainty Sources on High Flows under Climate Change

Multi-criteria Evaluation of Discharge Simulation in Dynamic Global Vegetation Models

Historical and future changes in global flood magnitude – evidence from a model–observation investigation

Quantifying uncertainty sources in extreme flow projections for three watersheds with different climate features in China

Historical Simulation Performance Evaluation and Monthly Flow Duration Curve Quantile-Mapping (MFDC-QM) of the GEOGLOWS ECMWF Streamflow Hydrologic Model