Articles | Volume 27, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1865-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1865-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Review article
| 
15 May 2023
Review article |
| 15 May 2023
| 15 May 2023
Hybrid forecasting: blending climate predictions with AI models
Louise J. Slater
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Louise Arnal
Centre for Hydrology, University of Saskatchewan, Canmore, Canada
Marie-Amélie Boucher
Department of Civil Engineering, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada
Annie Y.-Y. Chang
Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
Simon Moulds
School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Conor Murphy
Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units, Department of Geography, Maynooth University, Kildare, Ireland
Grey Nearing
Google Research, Mountain View, CA, USA
Guy Shalev
Google Research, Tel Aviv, Israel
Chaopeng Shen
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA 16801, USA
Linda Speight
School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Gabriele Villarini
IIHR – Hydroscience and Engineering, University of Iowa, IA, USA
Robert L. Wilby
Geography and Environment, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
Andrew Wood
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Climate and Global Dynamics, Boulder, CO, USA
Massimiliano Zappa
Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland
Related authors
Simon Moulds, Louise Slater, Louise Arnal, and Andrew W. Wood
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 2393–2406, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2393-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2393-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Seasonal streamflow forecasts are an important component of flood risk management. Here, we train and test a machine learning model to predict the monthly maximum daily streamflow up to 4 months ahead. We train the model on precipitation and temperature forecasts to produce probabilistic hindcasts for 579 stations across the UK for the period 2004–2016. We show skilful results up to 4 months ahead in many locations, although, in general, the skill declines with increasing lead time.
Emma Ford, Manuela I. Brunner, Hannah Christensen, and Louise Slater
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1493, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1493, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study aims to improve prediction and understanding of extreme flood events in UK near-natural catchments. We develop a machine learning framework to assess the contribution of different features to flood magnitude estimation. We find weather patterns are weak predictors and stress the importance of evaluating model performance across and within catchments.
Rutong Liu, Jiabo Yin, Louise Slater, Shengyu Kang, Yuanhang Yang, Pan Liu, Jiali Guo, Xihui Gu, Xiang Zhang, and Aliaksandr Volchak
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 3305–3326, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3305-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3305-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change accelerates the water cycle and alters the spatiotemporal distribution of hydrological variables, thus complicating the projection of future streamflow and hydrological droughts. We develop a cascade modeling chain to project future bivariate hydrological drought characteristics over China, using five bias-corrected global climate model outputs under three shared socioeconomic pathways, five hydrological models, and a deep-learning model.
Solomon H. Gebrechorkos, Julian Leyland, Simon J. Dadson, Sagy Cohen, Louise Slater, Michel Wortmann, Philip J. Ashworth, Georgina L. Bennett, Richard Boothroyd, Hannah Cloke, Pauline Delorme, Helen Griffith, Richard Hardy, Laurence Hawker, Stuart McLelland, Jeffrey Neal, Andrew Nicholas, Andrew J. Tatem, Ellie Vahidi, Yinxue Liu, Justin Sheffield, Daniel R. Parsons, and Stephen E. Darby
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 3099–3118, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3099-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3099-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluated six high-resolution global precipitation datasets for hydrological modelling. MSWEP and ERA5 showed better performance, but spatial variability was high. The findings highlight the importance of careful dataset selection for river discharge modelling due to the lack of a universally superior dataset. Further improvements in global precipitation data products are needed.
Marcus Buechel, Louise Slater, and Simon Dadson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2081–2105, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2081-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2081-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Afforestation has been proposed internationally, but the hydrological implications of such large increases in the spatial extent of woodland are not fully understood. In this study, we use a land surface model to simulate hydrology across Great Britain with realistic afforestation scenarios and potential climate changes. Countrywide afforestation minimally influences hydrology, when compared to climate change, and reduces low streamflow whilst not lowering the highest flows.
Bailey J. Anderson, Manuela I. Brunner, Louise J. Slater, and Simon J. Dadson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1567–1583, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1567-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1567-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Elasticityrefers to how much the amount of water in a river changes with precipitation. We usually calculate this using average streamflow values; however, the amount of water within rivers is also dependent on stored water sources. Here, we look at how elasticity varies across the streamflow distribution and show that not only do low and high streamflows respond differently to precipitation change, but also these differences vary with water storage availability.
Jiabo Yin, Louise J. Slater, Abdou Khouakhi, Le Yu, Pan Liu, Fupeng Li, Yadu Pokhrel, and Pierre Gentine
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5597–5615, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5597-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5597-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents long-term (i.e., 1940–2022) and high-resolution (i.e., 0.25°) monthly time series of TWS anomalies over the global land surface. The reconstruction is achieved by using a set of machine learning models with a large number of predictors, including climatic and hydrological variables, land use/land cover data, and vegetation indicators (e.g., leaf area index). Our proposed GTWS-MLrec performs overall as well as, or is more reliable than, previous TWS datasets.
Louise J. Slater, Chris Huntingford, Richard F. Pywell, John W. Redhead, and Elizabeth J. Kendon
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1377–1396, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1377-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1377-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This work considers how wheat yields are affected by weather conditions during the three main wheat growth stages in the UK. Impacts are strongest in years with compound weather extremes across multiple growth stages. Future climate projections are beneficial for wheat yields, on average, but indicate a high risk of unseen weather conditions which farmers may struggle to adapt to and mitigate against.
Thomas Lees, Steven Reece, Frederik Kratzert, Daniel Klotz, Martin Gauch, Jens De Bruijn, Reetik Kumar Sahu, Peter Greve, Louise Slater, and Simon J. Dadson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3079–3101, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3079-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3079-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Despite the accuracy of deep learning rainfall-runoff models, we are currently uncertain of what these models have learned. In this study we explore the internals of one deep learning architecture and demonstrate that the model learns about intermediate hydrological stores of soil moisture and snow water, despite never having seen data about these processes during training. Therefore, we find evidence that the deep learning approach learns a physically realistic mapping from inputs to outputs.
Manuela I. Brunner and Louise J. Slater
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 469–482, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-469-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-469-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Assessing the rarity and magnitude of very extreme flood events occurring less than twice a century is challenging due to the lack of observations of such rare events. Here we develop a new approach, pooling reforecast ensemble members from the European Flood Awareness System to increase the sample size available to estimate the frequency of extreme flood events. We demonstrate that such ensemble pooling produces more robust estimates than observation-based estimates.
Thomas Lees, Marcus Buechel, Bailey Anderson, Louise Slater, Steven Reece, Gemma Coxon, and Simon J. Dadson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5517–5534, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5517-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5517-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We used deep learning (DL) models to simulate the amount of water moving through a river channel (discharge) based on the rainfall, temperature and potential evaporation in the previous days. We tested the DL models on catchments across Great Britain finding that the model can accurately simulate hydrological systems across a variety of catchment conditions. Ultimately, the model struggled most in areas where there is chalky bedrock and where human influence on the catchment is large.
Louise J. Slater, Bailey Anderson, Marcus Buechel, Simon Dadson, Shasha Han, Shaun Harrigan, Timo Kelder, Katie Kowal, Thomas Lees, Tom Matthews, Conor Murphy, and Robert L. Wilby
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3897–3935, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3897-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3897-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Weather and water extremes have devastating effects each year. One of the principal challenges for society is understanding how extremes are likely to evolve under the influence of changes in climate, land cover, and other human impacts. This paper provides a review of the methods and challenges associated with the detection, attribution, management, and projection of nonstationary weather and water extremes.
Alireza Amani, Marie-Amélie Boucher, Alexandre R. Cabral, Vincent Vionnet, and Étienne Gaborit
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 2445–2465, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2445-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2445-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Accurately estimating groundwater recharge using numerical models is particularly difficult in cold regions with snow and soil freezing. This study evaluated a physics-based model against high-resolution field measurements. Our findings highlight a need for a better representation of soil-freezing processes, offering a roadmap for future model development. This leads to more accurate models to aid in water resource management decisions in cold climates.
Simon Moulds, Louise Slater, Louise Arnal, and Andrew W. Wood
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 2393–2406, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2393-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2393-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Seasonal streamflow forecasts are an important component of flood risk management. Here, we train and test a machine learning model to predict the monthly maximum daily streamflow up to 4 months ahead. We train the model on precipitation and temperature forecasts to produce probabilistic hindcasts for 579 stations across the UK for the period 2004–2016. We show skilful results up to 4 months ahead in many locations, although, in general, the skill declines with increasing lead time.
Wouter J. M. Knoben, Ashwin Raman, Gaby J. Gründemann, Mukesh Kumar, Alain Pietroniro, Chaopeng Shen, Yalan Song, Cyril Thébault, Katie van Werkhoven, Andrew W. Wood, and Martyn P. Clark
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 2361–2375, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2361-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2361-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Hydrologic models are needed to provide simulations of water availability, floods, and droughts. The accuracy of these simulations is often quantified with so-called performance scores. A common thought is that different models are more or less applicable to different landscapes, depending on how the model works. We show that performance scores are not helpful in distinguishing between different models and thus cannot easily be used to select an appropriate model for a specific place.
Emma Ford, Manuela I. Brunner, Hannah Christensen, and Louise Slater
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1493, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1493, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study aims to improve prediction and understanding of extreme flood events in UK near-natural catchments. We develop a machine learning framework to assess the contribution of different features to flood magnitude estimation. We find weather patterns are weak predictors and stress the importance of evaluating model performance across and within catchments.
Yuan Yang, Ming Pan, Dapeng Feng, Mu Xiao, Taylor Dixon, Robert Hartman, Chaopeng Shen, Yalan Song, Agniv Sengupta, Luca Delle Monache, and F. Martin Ralph
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1708, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1708, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We explore a machine learning-based data integration method that integrates streamflow (Q) and snow water equivalent (SWE) to improve streamflow estimates at various lag times (1–10 days, 1–6 months) and timescales (daily and monthly) over Western U.S. basins. Benefits rank as: integrating Q at the daily scale > Q at the monthly scale > SWE at the monthly scale > SWE at the daily scale. Results highlight the method’s potential for short- and long-term streamflow forecasting in the Western U.S.
Jiangtao Liu, Chaopeng Shen, Fearghal O'Donncha, Yalan Song, Wei Zhi, Hylke E. Beck, Tadd Bindas, Nicholas Kraabel, and Kathryn Lawson
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1706, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1706, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Using global and regional datasets, we compared attention-based models and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) models to predict hydrologic variables. Our results show LSTM models perform better in simpler tasks, whereas attention-based models perform better in complex scenarios, offering insights for improved water resource management.
Pravin Maduwantha, Thomas Wahl, Sara Santamaria-Aguilar, Robert Jane, Sönke Dangendorf, Hanbeen Kim, and Gabriele Villarini
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1557, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1557, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Compound flooding occurs when multiple drivers, such as heavy rain and storm surge, occur simultaneously. Comprehensive compound flood risk assessments require simulating a many storm events using flood models, but such historical data are limited. To address this, we developed a statistical framework to generate large numbers of synthetic yet realistic storm events for use in flood modeling.
Martin Gauch, Frederik Kratzert, Daniel Klotz, Grey Nearing, Deborah Cohen, and Oren Gilon
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1224, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1224, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Missing input data are one of the most common challenges when building deep learning hydrological models. We present and analyze different methods that can produce predictions when certain inputs are missing during training or inference. Our proposed strategies provide high accuracy while allowing for more flexible data handling and being robust to outages in operational scenarios.
Marit van Tiel, Matthias Huss, Massimiliano Zappa, Tobias Jonas, and Daniel Farinotti
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-404, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-404, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The summer of 2022 was extremely warm and dry in Europe, severely impacting water availability. We calculated water balance anomalies for 88 glacierized catchments in Switzerland, showing that glaciers played a crucial role in alleviating the drought situation by melting at record rates, partially compensating for the lack of rain and snowmelt. By comparing 2022 with past extreme years, we show that while glacier meltwater remains essential during droughts, its contribution is declining.
Ryan S. Padrón, Massimiliano Zappa, Luzi Bernhard, and Konrad Bogner
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 1685–1702, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1685-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1685-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We generate operational forecasts of daily maximum stream water temperature for 32 consecutive days at 54 stations in Switzerland with our best-performing data-driven model. The average forecast error is 0.38 °C for 1 d ahead and increases to 0.90 °C for 32 d ahead given the uncertainty in the meteorological variables influencing water temperature. Here we compare the skill of several models, how well they can forecast at new and ungauged stations, and the importance of different model inputs.
Raoul Alexandre Collenteur, Konrad Bogner, Christian Moeck, Massimiliano Zappa, and Mario Schirmer
Abstr. Int. Cartogr. Assoc., 9, 5, https://doi.org/10.5194/ica-abs-9-5-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/ica-abs-9-5-2025, 2025
Mohammad Sina Jahangir, John Quilty, Chaopeng Shen, Andrea Scott, Scott Steinschneider, and Jan Adamowski
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-846, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-846, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents a novel hybrid approach to streamflow prediction, significantly improving the efficiency and accuracy of fine-tuning deep learning models for hydrological prediction. Tested across numerous catchments in the U.S. and Europe, this method accelerates the fine-tuning process and improves prediction accuracy in locations beyond the training data. This innovative approach sets the stage for future hydrological models leveraging transfer learning.
Mozhgan A. Farahani, Andrew W. Wood, Guoqiang Tang, and Naoki Mizukami
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-38, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-38, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new strategy to calibrate large-domain land/hydrology models over diverse and extensive regions. Using SUMMA and mizuRoute models, our approach integrates catchment attributes, model parameters, and performance metrics to optimize streamflow simulations. By leveraging recent innovations in machine learning methods and concepts for hydrology, we improve calibration outcomes and enable regionalization to ungauged basins, which is valuable for national-scale water security studies.
Peijun Li, Yalan Song, Ming Pan, Kathryn Lawson, and Chaopeng Shen
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-483, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-483, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study explores how combining different model types improves streamflow predictions, especially in data-sparse scenarios. By integrating two highly accurate models with distinct mechanisms and leveraging multiple meteorological datasets, we highlight their unique strengths and set new accuracy benchmarks across spatiotemporal conditions. Our findings enhance the understanding of how diverse models and multi-source data can be effectively used to improve hydrological predictions.
Mari R. Tye, Ming Ge, Jadwiga H. Richter, Ethan D. Gutmann, Allyson Rugg, Cindy L. Bruyère, Sue Ellen Haupt, Flavio Lehner, Rachel McCrary, Andrew J. Newman, and Andy Wood
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 1117–1133, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1117-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1117-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
There is a perceived mismatch between the spatial scales on which global climate models can produce data and those needed for water management decisions. However, poor communication of specific metrics relevant to local decisions is also a problem. We assessed the credibility of a set of water management decision metrics in the Community Earth System Model v2 (CESM2). CESM2 shows potentially greater use of its output in long-range water management decisions.
Basil Kraft, Michael Schirmer, William H. Aeberhard, Massimiliano Zappa, Sonia I. Seneviratne, and Lukas Gudmundsson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 1061–1082, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1061-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1061-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study reconstructs daily runoff in Switzerland (1962–2023) using a deep-learning model, providing a spatially contiguous dataset on a medium-sized catchment grid. The model outperforms traditional hydrological methods, revealing shifts in Swiss water resources, including more frequent dry years and declining summer runoff. The reconstruction is publicly available.
Ather Abbas, Yuan Yang, Ming Pan, Yves Tramblay, Chaopeng Shen, Haoyu Ji, Solomon H. Gebrechorkos, Florian Pappenberger, Jong Cheol Pyo, Dapeng Feng, George Huffman, Phu Nguyen, Christian Massari, Luca Brocca, Tan Jackson, and Hylke E. Beck
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4194, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4194, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our study evaluated 23 precipitation datasets using a hydrological model at global scale to assess their suitability and accuracy. We found that MSWEP V2.8 excels due to its ability to integrate data from multiple sources, while others, such as IMERG and JRA-3Q, demonstrated strong regional performances. This research assists in selecting the appropriate dataset for applications in water resource management, hazard assessment, agriculture, and environmental monitoring.
Gab Abramowitz, Anna Ukkola, Sanaa Hobeichi, Jon Cranko Page, Mathew Lipson, Martin G. De Kauwe, Samuel Green, Claire Brenner, Jonathan Frame, Grey Nearing, Martyn Clark, Martin Best, Peter Anthoni, Gabriele Arduini, Souhail Boussetta, Silvia Caldararu, Kyeungwoo Cho, Matthias Cuntz, David Fairbairn, Craig R. Ferguson, Hyungjun Kim, Yeonjoo Kim, Jürgen Knauer, David Lawrence, Xiangzhong Luo, Sergey Malyshev, Tomoko Nitta, Jerome Ogee, Keith Oleson, Catherine Ottlé, Phillipe Peylin, Patricia de Rosnay, Heather Rumbold, Bob Su, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Xiaoni Wang-Faivre, Yunfei Wang, and Yijian Zeng
Biogeosciences, 21, 5517–5538, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5517-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5517-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper evaluates land models – computer-based models that simulate ecosystem dynamics; land carbon, water, and energy cycles; and the role of land in the climate system. It uses machine learning and AI approaches to show that, despite the complexity of land models, they do not perform nearly as well as they could given the amount of information they are provided with about the prediction problem.
Pravin Maduwantha, Thomas Wahl, Sara Santamaria-Aguilar, Robert Jane, James F. Booth, Hanbeen Kim, and Gabriele Villarini
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 4091–4107, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-4091-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-4091-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
When assessing the likelihood of compound flooding, most studies ignore that it can arise from different storm types with distinct statistical characteristics. Here, we present a new statistical framework that accounts for these differences and shows how neglecting these can impact the likelihood of compound flood potential.
Claudia Färber, Henning Plessow, Simon Mischel, Frederik Kratzert, Nans Addor, Guy Shalev, and Ulrich Looser
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-427, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-427, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
Large-sample datasets are essential in hydrological science to support modelling studies and advance process understanding. Caravan is a community initiative to create a large-sample hydrology dataset of meteorological forcing data, catchment attributes, and discharge data for catchments around the world. This dataset is a subset of hydrological discharge data and station-based watersheds from the Global Runoff Data Centre (GRDC), which are covered by an open data policy.
Shahzad Gani, Louise Arnal, Lucy Beattie, John Hillier, Sam Illingworth, Tiziana Lanza, Solmaz Mohadjer, Karoliina Pulkkinen, Heidi Roop, Iain Stewart, Kirsten von Elverfeldt, and Stephanie Zihms
Geosci. Commun., 7, 251–266, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-251-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-251-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Science communication in geosciences has societal and scientific value but often operates in “shadowlands”. This editorial highlights these issues and proposes potential solutions. Our objective is to create a transparent and responsible geoscience communication landscape, fostering scientific progress, the well-being of scientists, and societal benefits.
Maximillian Van Wyk de Vries, Tom Matthews, L. Baker Perry, Nirakar Thapa, and Rob Wilby
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7629–7643, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7629-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7629-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper introduces the AtsMOS workflow, a new tool for improving weather forecasts in mountainous areas. By combining advanced statistical techniques with local weather data, AtsMOS can provide more accurate predictions of weather conditions. Using data from Mount Everest as an example, AtsMOS has shown promise in better forecasting hazardous weather conditions, making it a valuable tool for communities in mountainous regions and beyond.
Dapeng Feng, Hylke Beck, Jens de Bruijn, Reetik Kumar Sahu, Yusuke Satoh, Yoshihide Wada, Jiangtao Liu, Ming Pan, Kathryn Lawson, and Chaopeng Shen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7181–7198, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7181-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7181-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate hydrologic modeling is vital to characterizing water cycle responses to climate change. For the first time at this scale, we use differentiable physics-informed machine learning hydrologic models to simulate rainfall–runoff processes for 3753 basins around the world and compare them with purely data-driven and traditional modeling approaches. This sets a benchmark for hydrologic estimates around the world and builds foundations for improving global hydrologic simulations.
Frederik Kratzert, Martin Gauch, Daniel Klotz, and Grey Nearing
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4187–4201, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4187-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4187-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Recently, a special type of neural-network architecture became increasingly popular in hydrology literature. However, in most applications, this model was applied as a one-to-one replacement for hydrology models without adapting or rethinking the experimental setup. In this opinion paper, we show how this is almost always a bad decision and how using these kinds of models requires the use of large-sample hydrology data sets.
Louise Arnal, Martyn P. Clark, Alain Pietroniro, Vincent Vionnet, David R. Casson, Paul H. Whitfield, Vincent Fortin, Andrew W. Wood, Wouter J. M. Knoben, Brandi W. Newton, and Colleen Walford
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4127–4155, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4127-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4127-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Forecasting river flow months in advance is crucial for water sectors and society. In North America, snowmelt is a key driver of flow. This study presents a statistical workflow using snow data to forecast flow months ahead in North American snow-fed rivers. Variations in the river flow predictability across the continent are evident, raising concerns about future predictability in a changing (snow) climate. The reproducible workflow hosted on GitHub supports collaborative and open science.
Andreas Auer, Martin Gauch, Frederik Kratzert, Grey Nearing, Sepp Hochreiter, and Daniel Klotz
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4099–4126, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4099-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4099-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This work examines the impact of temporal and spatial information on the uncertainty estimation of streamflow forecasts. The study emphasizes the importance of data updates and global information for precise uncertainty estimates. We use conformal prediction to show that recent data enhance the estimates, even if only available infrequently. Local data yield reasonable average estimations but fall short for peak-flow events. The use of global data significantly improves these predictions.
Daniel Klotz, Martin Gauch, Frederik Kratzert, Grey Nearing, and Jakob Zscheischler
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 3665–3673, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3665-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3665-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The evaluation of model performance is essential for hydrological modeling. Using performance criteria requires a deep understanding of their properties. We focus on a counterintuitive aspect of the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) and show that if we divide the data into multiple parts, the overall performance can be higher than all the evaluations of the subsets. Although this follows from the definition of the NSE, the resulting behavior can have unintended consequences in practice.
Rutong Liu, Jiabo Yin, Louise Slater, Shengyu Kang, Yuanhang Yang, Pan Liu, Jiali Guo, Xihui Gu, Xiang Zhang, and Aliaksandr Volchak
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 3305–3326, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3305-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3305-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change accelerates the water cycle and alters the spatiotemporal distribution of hydrological variables, thus complicating the projection of future streamflow and hydrological droughts. We develop a cascade modeling chain to project future bivariate hydrological drought characteristics over China, using five bias-corrected global climate model outputs under three shared socioeconomic pathways, five hydrological models, and a deep-learning model.
Solomon H. Gebrechorkos, Julian Leyland, Simon J. Dadson, Sagy Cohen, Louise Slater, Michel Wortmann, Philip J. Ashworth, Georgina L. Bennett, Richard Boothroyd, Hannah Cloke, Pauline Delorme, Helen Griffith, Richard Hardy, Laurence Hawker, Stuart McLelland, Jeffrey Neal, Andrew Nicholas, Andrew J. Tatem, Ellie Vahidi, Yinxue Liu, Justin Sheffield, Daniel R. Parsons, and Stephen E. Darby
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 3099–3118, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3099-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3099-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluated six high-resolution global precipitation datasets for hydrological modelling. MSWEP and ERA5 showed better performance, but spatial variability was high. The findings highlight the importance of careful dataset selection for river discharge modelling due to the lack of a universally superior dataset. Further improvements in global precipitation data products are needed.
Yalan Song, Wouter J. M. Knoben, Martyn P. Clark, Dapeng Feng, Kathryn Lawson, Kamlesh Sawadekar, and Chaopeng Shen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 3051–3077, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3051-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3051-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Differentiable models (DMs) integrate neural networks and physical equations for accuracy, interpretability, and knowledge discovery. We developed an adjoint-based DM for ordinary differential equations (ODEs) for hydrological modeling, reducing distorted fluxes and physical parameters from errors in models that use explicit and operation-splitting schemes. With a better numerical scheme and improved structure, the adjoint-based DM matches or surpasses long short-term memory (LSTM) performance.
Michael Margreth, Florian Lustenberger, Dorothea Hug Peter, Fritz Schlunegger, and Massimiliano Zappa
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-78, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-78, 2024
Preprint under review for NHESS
Short summary
Short summary
Recession models (RM) are crucial for observing the low flow behavior of a catchment. We developed two novel RM, which are designed to represent slowly draining catchment conditions. With a newly designed low flow prediction procedure we tested the prediction capability of these two models and three others from literature. One of our novel products delivered the best results, because it best represents the slowly draining catchment conditions.
Peter Reichert, Kai Ma, Marvin Höge, Fabrizio Fenicia, Marco Baity-Jesi, Dapeng Feng, and Chaopeng Shen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2505–2529, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2505-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2505-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We compared the predicted change in catchment outlet discharge to precipitation and temperature change for conceptual and machine learning hydrological models. We found that machine learning models, despite providing excellent fit and prediction capabilities, can be unreliable regarding the prediction of the effect of temperature change for low-elevation catchments. This indicates the need for caution when applying them for the prediction of the effect of climate change.
Marcus Buechel, Louise Slater, and Simon Dadson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2081–2105, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2081-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2081-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Afforestation has been proposed internationally, but the hydrological implications of such large increases in the spatial extent of woodland are not fully understood. In this study, we use a land surface model to simulate hydrology across Great Britain with realistic afforestation scenarios and potential climate changes. Countrywide afforestation minimally influences hydrology, when compared to climate change, and reduces low streamflow whilst not lowering the highest flows.
Ben Maybee, Cathryn E. Birch, Steven J. Böing, Thomas Willis, Linda Speight, Aurore N. Porson, Charlie Pilling, Kay L. Shelton, and Mark A. Trigg
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 1415–1436, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1415-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1415-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents the development and verification of FOREWARNS, a novel method for regional-scale forecasting of surface water flooding. We detail outcomes from a workshop held with UK forecast users, who indicated they valued the forecasts and would use them to complement national guidance. We use results of objective forecast tests against flood observations over northern England to show that this confidence is justified and that FOREWARNS meets the needs of UK flood responders.
Bailey J. Anderson, Manuela I. Brunner, Louise J. Slater, and Simon J. Dadson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1567–1583, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1567-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1567-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Elasticityrefers to how much the amount of water in a river changes with precipitation. We usually calculate this using average streamflow values; however, the amount of water within rivers is also dependent on stored water sources. Here, we look at how elasticity varies across the streamflow distribution and show that not only do low and high streamflows respond differently to precipitation change, but also these differences vary with water storage availability.
Conrad Wasko, Seth Westra, Rory Nathan, Acacia Pepler, Timothy H. Raupach, Andrew Dowdy, Fiona Johnson, Michelle Ho, Kathleen L. McInnes, Doerte Jakob, Jason Evans, Gabriele Villarini, and Hayley J. Fowler
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1251–1285, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1251-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In response to flood risk, design flood estimation is a cornerstone of infrastructure design and emergency response planning, but design flood estimation guidance under climate change is still in its infancy. We perform the first published systematic review of the impact of climate change on design flood estimation and conduct a meta-analysis to provide quantitative estimates of possible future changes in extreme rainfall.
Guoqiang Tang, Andrew W. Wood, Andrew J. Newman, Martyn P. Clark, and Simon Michael Papalexiou
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1153–1173, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1153-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1153-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Ensemble geophysical datasets are crucial for understanding uncertainties and supporting probabilistic estimation/prediction. However, open-access tools for creating these datasets are limited. We have developed the Python-based Geospatial Probabilistic Estimation Package (GPEP). Through several experiments, we demonstrate GPEP's ability to estimate precipitation, temperature, and snow water equivalent. GPEP will be a useful tool to support uncertainty analysis in Earth science applications.
Marvin Höge, Martina Kauzlaric, Rosi Siber, Ursula Schönenberger, Pascal Horton, Jan Schwanbeck, Marius Günter Floriancic, Daniel Viviroli, Sibylle Wilhelm, Anna E. Sikorska-Senoner, Nans Addor, Manuela Brunner, Sandra Pool, Massimiliano Zappa, and Fabrizio Fenicia
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5755–5784, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5755-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5755-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
CAMELS-CH is an open large-sample hydro-meteorological data set that covers 331 catchments in hydrologic Switzerland from 1 January 1981 to 31 December 2020. It comprises (a) daily data of river discharge and water level as well as meteorologic variables like precipitation and temperature; (b) yearly glacier and land cover data; (c) static attributes of, e.g, topography or human impact; and (d) catchment delineations. CAMELS-CH enables water and climate research and modeling at catchment level.
Jiabo Yin, Louise J. Slater, Abdou Khouakhi, Le Yu, Pan Liu, Fupeng Li, Yadu Pokhrel, and Pierre Gentine
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5597–5615, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5597-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5597-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents long-term (i.e., 1940–2022) and high-resolution (i.e., 0.25°) monthly time series of TWS anomalies over the global land surface. The reconstruction is achieved by using a set of machine learning models with a large number of predictors, including climatic and hydrological variables, land use/land cover data, and vegetation indicators (e.g., leaf area index). Our proposed GTWS-MLrec performs overall as well as, or is more reliable than, previous TWS datasets.
Valérie Jean, Marie-Amélie Boucher, Anissa Frini, and Dominic Roussel
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 3351–3373, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3351-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3351-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Flood forecasts are only useful if they are understood correctly. They are also uncertain, and it is difficult to present all of the information about the forecast and its uncertainty on a map, as it is three dimensional (water depth and extent, in all directions). To overcome this, we interviewed 139 people to understand their preferences in terms of forecast visualization. We propose simple and effective ways of presenting flood forecast maps so that they can be understood and useful.
Doaa Aboelyazeed, Chonggang Xu, Forrest M. Hoffman, Jiangtao Liu, Alex W. Jones, Chris Rackauckas, Kathryn Lawson, and Chaopeng Shen
Biogeosciences, 20, 2671–2692, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2671-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-2671-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Photosynthesis is critical for life and has been affected by the changing climate. Many parameters come into play while modeling, but traditional calibration approaches face many issues. Our framework trains coupled neural networks to provide parameters to a photosynthesis model. Using big data, we independently found parameter values that were correlated with those in the literature while giving higher correlation and reduced biases in photosynthesis rates.
Dapeng Feng, Hylke Beck, Kathryn Lawson, and Chaopeng Shen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 2357–2373, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2357-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2357-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Powerful hybrid models (called δ or delta models) embrace the fundamental learning capability of AI and can also explain the physical processes. Here we test their performance when applied to regions not in the training data. δ models rivaled the accuracy of state-of-the-art AI models under the data-dense scenario and even surpassed them for the data-sparse one. They generalize well due to the physical structure included. δ models could be ideal candidates for global hydrologic assessment.
Jiangtao Liu, David Hughes, Farshid Rahmani, Kathryn Lawson, and Chaopeng Shen
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1553–1567, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1553-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1553-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Under-monitored regions like Africa need high-quality soil moisture predictions to help with food production, but it is not clear if soil moisture processes are similar enough around the world for data-driven models to maintain accuracy. We present a deep-learning-based soil moisture model that learns from both in situ data and satellite data and performs better than satellite products at the global scale. These results help us apply our model globally while better understanding its limitations.
Katherine Dooley, Ciaran Kelly, Natascha Seifert, Therese Myslinski, Sophie O'Kelly, Rushna Siraj, Ciara Crosby, Jack Kevin Dunne, Kate McCauley, James Donoghue, Eoin Gaddren, Daniel Conway, Jordan Cooney, Niamh McCarthy, Eoin Cullen, Simon Noone, Conor Murphy, and Peter Thorne
Clim. Past, 19, 1–22, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-19-1-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-19-1-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The highest currently recognised air temperature (33.3 °C) ever recorded in the Republic of Ireland was logged at Kilkenny Castle in 1887. This paper reassesses the plausibility of the record using various methods such as inter-station reassessment and 20CRv3 reanalysis. As a result, Boora 1976 at 32.5 °C is presented as a more reliable high-temperature record for the Republic of Ireland. The final decision however rests with the national meteorological service, Met Éireann.
Grey S. Nearing, Daniel Klotz, Jonathan M. Frame, Martin Gauch, Oren Gilon, Frederik Kratzert, Alden Keefe Sampson, Guy Shalev, and Sella Nevo
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5493–5513, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5493-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5493-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
When designing flood forecasting models, it is necessary to use all available data to achieve the most accurate predictions possible. This manuscript explores two basic ways of ingesting near-real-time streamflow data into machine learning streamflow models. The point we want to make is that when working in the context of machine learning (instead of traditional hydrology models that are based on
bio-geophysics), it is not necessary to use complex statistical methods for injecting sparse data.
Louise J. Slater, Chris Huntingford, Richard F. Pywell, John W. Redhead, and Elizabeth J. Kendon
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1377–1396, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1377-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1377-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This work considers how wheat yields are affected by weather conditions during the three main wheat growth stages in the UK. Impacts are strongest in years with compound weather extremes across multiple growth stages. Future climate projections are beneficial for wheat yields, on average, but indicate a high risk of unseen weather conditions which farmers may struggle to adapt to and mitigate against.
Jean Odry, Marie-Amélie Boucher, Simon Lachance-Cloutier, Richard Turcotte, and Pierre-Yves St-Louis
The Cryosphere, 16, 3489–3506, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-3489-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-3489-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The research deals with the assimilation of in-situ local snow observations in a large-scale spatialized snow modeling framework over the province of Quebec (eastern Canada). The methodology is based on proposing multiple spatialized snow scenarios using the snow model and weighting them according to the available observations. The paper especially focuses on the spatial coherence of the snow scenario proposed in the framework.
Sella Nevo, Efrat Morin, Adi Gerzi Rosenthal, Asher Metzger, Chen Barshai, Dana Weitzner, Dafi Voloshin, Frederik Kratzert, Gal Elidan, Gideon Dror, Gregory Begelman, Grey Nearing, Guy Shalev, Hila Noga, Ira Shavitt, Liora Yuklea, Moriah Royz, Niv Giladi, Nofar Peled Levi, Ofir Reich, Oren Gilon, Ronnie Maor, Shahar Timnat, Tal Shechter, Vladimir Anisimov, Yotam Gigi, Yuval Levin, Zach Moshe, Zvika Ben-Haim, Avinatan Hassidim, and Yossi Matias
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4013–4032, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4013-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4013-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Early flood warnings are one of the most effective tools to save lives and goods. Machine learning (ML) models can improve flood prediction accuracy but their use in operational frameworks is limited. The paper presents a flood warning system, operational in India and Bangladesh, that uses ML models for forecasting river stage and flood inundation maps and discusses the models' performances. In 2021, more than 100 million flood alerts were sent to people near rivers over an area of 470 000 km2.
Jonathan M. Frame, Frederik Kratzert, Daniel Klotz, Martin Gauch, Guy Shalev, Oren Gilon, Logan M. Qualls, Hoshin V. Gupta, and Grey S. Nearing
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3377–3392, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3377-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3377-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The most accurate rainfall–runoff predictions are currently based on deep learning. There is a concern among hydrologists that deep learning models may not be reliable in extrapolation or for predicting extreme events. This study tests that hypothesis. The deep learning models remained relatively accurate in predicting extreme events compared with traditional models, even when extreme events were not included in the training set.
Thomas Lees, Steven Reece, Frederik Kratzert, Daniel Klotz, Martin Gauch, Jens De Bruijn, Reetik Kumar Sahu, Peter Greve, Louise Slater, and Simon J. Dadson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3079–3101, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3079-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3079-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Despite the accuracy of deep learning rainfall-runoff models, we are currently uncertain of what these models have learned. In this study we explore the internals of one deep learning architecture and demonstrate that the model learns about intermediate hydrological stores of soil moisture and snow water, despite never having seen data about these processes during training. Therefore, we find evidence that the deep learning approach learns a physically realistic mapping from inputs to outputs.
Mirianna Budimir, Alison Sneddon, Issy Nelder, Sarah Brown, Amy Donovan, and Linda Speight
Geosci. Commun., 5, 151–175, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-151-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-151-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper extracts key learning from two case studies (India and Mozambique), outlining solutions and approaches to challenges in developing forecast products. These lessons and solutions can be used by forecasters and practitioners to support the development of useful, appropriate, and co-designed forecast information for institutional decision-makers to support more effective early action in advance of disasters.
Samuel O. Awe, Martin Mahony, Edley Michaud, Conor Murphy, Simon J. Noone, Victor K. C. Venema, Thomas G. Thorne, and Peter W. Thorne
Clim. Past, 18, 793–820, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-18-793-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-18-793-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We unearth and analyse 2 decades of highly valuable measurements made on Mauritius at the Royal Alfred Observatory, where several distinct thermometer combinations were in use and compared, at the turn of the 20th century. This series provides unique insights into biases in early instrumental temperature records. Differences are substantial and for some instruments exhibit strong seasonality. This reinforces the critical importance of understanding early instrumental series biases.
Daniel Klotz, Frederik Kratzert, Martin Gauch, Alden Keefe Sampson, Johannes Brandstetter, Günter Klambauer, Sepp Hochreiter, and Grey Nearing
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1673–1693, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1673-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1673-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This contribution evaluates distributional runoff predictions from deep-learning-based approaches. We propose a benchmarking setup and establish four strong baselines. The results show that accurate, precise, and reliable uncertainty estimation can be achieved with deep learning.
Jing Xu, François Anctil, and Marie-Amélie Boucher
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1001–1017, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1001-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1001-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The performance of the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II) is compared with a conventional post-processing method of affine kernel dressing. NSGA-II showed its superiority in improving the forecast skill and communicating trade-offs with end-users. It allows the enhancement of the forecast quality since it allows for setting multiple specific objectives from scratch. This flexibility should be considered as a reason to implement hydrologic ensemble prediction systems (H-EPSs).
Manuela I. Brunner and Louise J. Slater
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 469–482, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-469-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-469-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Assessing the rarity and magnitude of very extreme flood events occurring less than twice a century is challenging due to the lack of observations of such rare events. Here we develop a new approach, pooling reforecast ensemble members from the European Flood Awareness System to increase the sample size available to estimate the frequency of extreme flood events. We demonstrate that such ensemble pooling produces more robust estimates than observation-based estimates.
Thomas Lees, Marcus Buechel, Bailey Anderson, Louise Slater, Steven Reece, Gemma Coxon, and Simon J. Dadson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5517–5534, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5517-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5517-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We used deep learning (DL) models to simulate the amount of water moving through a river channel (discharge) based on the rainfall, temperature and potential evaporation in the previous days. We tested the DL models on catchments across Great Britain finding that the model can accurately simulate hydrological systems across a variety of catchment conditions. Ultimately, the model struggled most in areas where there is chalky bedrock and where human influence on the catchment is large.
Hadush Meresa, Conor Murphy, Rowan Fealy, and Saeed Golian
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5237–5257, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5237-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5237-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The assessment of future impacts of climate change is associated with a cascade of uncertainty linked to the modelling chain employed in assessing local-scale changes. Understanding and quantifying this cascade is essential for developing effective adaptation actions. We find that not only do the contributions of different sources of uncertainty vary by catchment, but that the dominant sources of uncertainty can be very different on a catchment-by-catchment basis.
Vincent Vionnet, Colleen Mortimer, Mike Brady, Louise Arnal, and Ross Brown
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 4603–4619, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4603-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4603-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Water equivalent of snow cover (SWE) is a key variable for water management, hydrological forecasting and climate monitoring. A new Canadian SWE dataset (CanSWE) is presented in this paper. It compiles data collected by multiple agencies and companies at more than 2500 different locations across Canada over the period 1928–2020. Snow depth and derived bulk snow density are also included when available.
Seán Donegan, Conor Murphy, Shaun Harrigan, Ciaran Broderick, Dáire Foran Quinn, Saeed Golian, Jeff Knight, Tom Matthews, Christel Prudhomme, Adam A. Scaife, Nicky Stringer, and Robert L. Wilby
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 4159–4183, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-4159-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-4159-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We benchmarked the skill of ensemble streamflow prediction (ESP) for a diverse sample of 46 Irish catchments. We found that ESP is skilful in the majority of catchments up to several months ahead. However, the level of skill was strongly dependent on lead time, initialisation month, and individual catchment location and storage properties. We also conditioned ESP with the winter North Atlantic Oscillation and show that improvements in forecast skill, reliability, and discrimination are possible.
Guoqiang Tang, Martyn P. Clark, Simon Michael Papalexiou, Andrew J. Newman, Andrew W. Wood, Dominique Brunet, and Paul H. Whitfield
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 3337–3362, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3337-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3337-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Probabilistic estimates are useful to quantify the uncertainties in meteorological datasets. This study develops the Ensemble Meteorological Dataset for North America (EMDNA). EMDNA has 100 members with daily precipitation amount, mean daily temperature, and daily temperature range at 0.1° spatial resolution from 1979 to 2018. It is expected to be useful for hydrological and meteorological applications in North America.
Louise J. Slater, Bailey Anderson, Marcus Buechel, Simon Dadson, Shasha Han, Shaun Harrigan, Timo Kelder, Katie Kowal, Thomas Lees, Tom Matthews, Conor Murphy, and Robert L. Wilby
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3897–3935, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3897-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3897-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Weather and water extremes have devastating effects each year. One of the principal challenges for society is understanding how extremes are likely to evolve under the influence of changes in climate, land cover, and other human impacts. This paper provides a review of the methods and challenges associated with the detection, attribution, management, and projection of nonstationary weather and water extremes.
Konstantin F. F. Ntokas, Jean Odry, Marie-Amélie Boucher, and Camille Garnaud
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3017–3040, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3017-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3017-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This article shows a conversion model of snow depth into snow water equivalent (SWE) using an ensemble of artificial neural networks. The novelty is a direct estimation of SWE and the improvement of the estimation by in-depth analysis of network structures. The usage of an ensemble allows a probabilistic estimation and, therefore, a deeper insight. It is a follow-up study of a similar study over Quebec but extends it to the whole area of Canada and improves it further.
Frederik Kratzert, Daniel Klotz, Sepp Hochreiter, and Grey S. Nearing
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2685–2703, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2685-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2685-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate how deep learning models use different meteorological data sets in the task of (regional) rainfall–runoff modeling. We show that performance can be significantly improved when using different data products as input and further show how the model learns to combine those meteorological input differently across time and space. The results are carefully benchmarked against classical approaches, showing the supremacy of the presented approach.
Manuela I. Brunner, Eric Gilleland, and Andrew W. Wood
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 621–634, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-621-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-621-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Compound hot and dry events can lead to severe impacts whose severity may depend on their timescale and spatial extent. Here, we show that the spatial extent and timescale of compound hot–dry events are strongly related, spatial compound event extents are largest at
sub-seasonal timescales, and short events are driven more by high temperatures, while longer events are more driven by low precipitation. Future climate impact studies should therefore be performed at different timescales.
Martin Gauch, Frederik Kratzert, Daniel Klotz, Grey Nearing, Jimmy Lin, and Sepp Hochreiter
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2045–2062, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2045-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2045-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present multi-timescale Short-Term Memory (MTS-LSTM), a machine learning approach that predicts discharge at multiple timescales within one model. MTS-LSTM is significantly more accurate than the US National Water Model and computationally more efficient than an individual LSTM model per timescale. Further, MTS-LSTM can process different input variables at different timescales, which is important as the lead time of meteorological forecasts often depends on their temporal resolution.
Manuela I. Brunner, Lieke A. Melsen, Andrew W. Wood, Oldrich Rakovec, Naoki Mizukami, Wouter J. M. Knoben, and Martyn P. Clark
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 105–119, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-105-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-105-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Assessments of current, local, and regional flood hazards and their future changes often involve the use of hydrologic models. A reliable model ideally reproduces both local flood characteristics and regional aspects of flooding. In this paper we investigate how such characteristics are represented by hydrologic models. Our results show that both the modeling of local and regional flood characteristics are challenging, especially under changing climate conditions.
Elham Rouholahnejad Freund, Massimiliano Zappa, and James W. Kirchner
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 5015–5025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5015-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5015-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Evapotranspiration (ET) is the largest flux from the land to the atmosphere and thus contributes to Earth's energy and water balance. Due to its impact on atmospheric dynamics, ET is a key driver of droughts and heatwaves. In this paper, we demonstrate how averaging over land surface heterogeneity contributes to substantial overestimates of ET fluxes. We also demonstrate how one can correct for the effects of small-scale heterogeneity without explicitly representing it in land surface models.
Guoqiang Tang, Martyn P. Clark, Andrew J. Newman, Andrew W. Wood, Simon Michael Papalexiou, Vincent Vionnet, and Paul H. Whitfield
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2381–2409, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2381-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2381-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Station observations are critical for hydrological and meteorological studies, but they often contain missing values and have short measurement periods. This study developed a serially complete dataset for North America (SCDNA) from 1979 to 2018 for 27 276 precipitation and temperature stations. SCDNA is built on multiple data sources and infilling/reconstruction strategies to achieve high-quality estimates which can be used for a variety of applications.
Louise Arnal, Liz Anspoks, Susan Manson, Jessica Neumann, Tim Norton, Elisabeth Stephens, Louise Wolfenden, and Hannah Louise Cloke
Geosci. Commun., 3, 203–232, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-3-203-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-3-203-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Environment Agency (EA), responsible for flood risk management in England, is moving towards the use of probabilistic river flood forecasts. By showing the likelihood of future floods, they can allow earlier anticipation. But making decisions on probabilistic information is complex and interviews with EA decision-makers highlight the practical challenges and opportunities of this transition. We make recommendations to support a successful transition for flood early warning in England.
Cited articles
Addor, N., Newman, A. J., Mizukami, N., and Clark, M. P.: The CAMELS data set: catchment attributes and meteorology for large-sample studies, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 5293–5313, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5293-2017, 2017. a, b
AghaKouchak, A., Pan, B., Mazdiyasni, O., Sadegh, M., Jiwa, S., Zhang, W., Love, C. A., Madadgar, S., Papalexiou, S. M., Davis, S. J. and Hsu, K: Status and prospects for drought forecasting: opportunities in artificial intelligence and hybrid physical–statistical forecasting, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 380, 20210288, 2022. a, b
Alfieri, L., Burek, P., Dutra, E., Krzeminski, B., Muraro, D., Thielen, J., and Pappenberger, F.:
GloFAS – global ensemble streamflow forecasting and flood early warning, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1161–1175, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1161-2013, 2013. a
Altman, N. and Krzywinski, M.:
The curse(s) of dimensionality, Nat. Methods, 15, 399–400, 2018. a
Anctil, F., Michel, C., Perrin, C., and Andréassian, V.:
A soil moisture index as an auxiliary ANN input for stream flow forecasting, J. Hydrol., 286, 155–167, 2004. a
Anderson, G. J. and Lucas, D. D.:
Machine Learning Predictions of a Multiresolution Climate Model Ensemble, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 4273–4280, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL077049, 2018. a
Arheimer, B., Pimentel, R., Isberg, K., Crochemore, L., Andersson, J. C. M., Hasan, A., and Pineda, L.:
Global catchment modelling using World-Wide HYPE (WWH), open data, and stepwise parameter estimation, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 535–559, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-535-2020, 2020. a
Arnal, L., Cloke, H. L., Stephens, E., Wetterhall, F., Prudhomme, C., Neumann, J., Krzeminski, B., and Pappenberger, F.:
Skilful seasonal forecasts of streamflow over Europe?, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 2057–2072, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2057-2018, 2018. a, b
Arnal, L., Anspoks, L., Manson, S., Neumann, J., Norton, T., Stephens, E., Wolfenden, L., and Cloke, H. L.:
“Are we talking just a bit of water out of bank? Or is it Armageddon?” Front line perspectives on transitioning to probabilistic fluvial flood forecasts in England, Geoscience Communication, 3, 203–232, 2020. a, b
Baker, S., Wood, A., and Rajagopalan, B.:
Application of Postprocessing to Watershed-Scale Subseasonal Climate Forecasts over the Contiguous United States, J. Hydrometeorol., 21, 971–987, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-19-0155.1, 2020. a, b
Bauer, P., Thorpe, A., and Brunet, G.:
The quiet revolution of numerical weather prediction, Nature, 525, 47–55, 2015. a
Befort, D., Brunner, L., Borchert, L., O'Reilly, C., Mignot, J., Ballinger, A., Hegerl, G., Murphy, J., and Weisheimer, A.: Combination of decadal predictions and climate projections in time: Challenges and potential solutions, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL098568, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL098568, 2022. a, b, c, d
Befort, D. J., O'Reilly, C. H., and Weisheimer, A.:
Constraining projections using decadal predictions, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL087900, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL087900, 2020. a, b
Bennett, J. C., Robertson, D. E., Wang, Q. J., Li, M., and Perraud, J.-M.:
Propagating reliable estimates of hydrological forecast uncertainty to many lead times, J. Hydrol., 603, 126798, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126798, 2021a. a
Bennett, J. C., Wang, Q., Robertson, D. E., Bridgart, R., Lerat, J., Li, M., and Michael, K.: An error model for long-range ensemble forecasts of ephemeral rivers, Adv. Water Resour., 151, 103891, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2021.103891, 2021b. a
Bergström, S.:
Development and application of a conceptual model for Scandinavian catchments, Tech. Rep. Report RHO No. 7, Norrköping, Sweden, 1976. a
Beven, K.:
Deep learning, hydrological processes and the uniqueness of place, Hydrol. Process., 34, 3608–3613, 2020. a
Bindas, T., Tsai, W.-P., Liu, J., Rahmani, F., Feng, D., Bian, Y., Lawson, K., and Shen, C.: Improving large-basin streamflow simulation using a modular, differentiable, learnable graph model for routing, Authorea, 29 September 2022, https://doi.org/10.1002/essoar.10512512.1, 2022. a
Bisson, J. and Roberge, F.: Prévision des apports naturels: Expérience d'Hydro-Québec, workshop on flow predictions, in: IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, November 1983, Toronto, 1983. a
Boer, G. J., Smith, D. M., Cassou, C., Doblas-Reyes, F., Danabasoglu, G., Kirtman, B., Kushnir, Y., Kimoto, M., Meehl, G. A., Msadek, R., Mueller, W. A., Taylor, K. E., Zwiers, F., Rixen, M., Ruprich-Robert, Y., and Eade, R.:
The Decadal Climate Prediction Project (DCPP) contribution to CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3751–3777, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3751-2016, 2016. a
Bogner, K., Pappenberger, F., and Zappa, M.:
Machine Learning Techniques for Predicting the Energy Consumption/Production and Its Uncertainties Driven by Meteorological Observations and Forecasts, Sustainability, 11, 3328, https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123328, 2019. a, b, c
Bogner, K., Chang, A. Y., Bernhard, L., Zappa, M., Monhart, S., and Spirig, C.:
Tercile Forecasts for Extending the Horizon of Skillful Hydrological Predictions, J. Hydrometeorol., 23, 521–539, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-21-0020.1, 2022. a, b, c
Bretherton, C. S., Henn, B., Kwa, A., Brenowitz, N. D., Watt-Meyer, O., McGibbon, J., Perkins, W. A., Clark, S. K., and Harris, L.: Correcting Coarse-Grid Weather and Climate Models by Machine Learning From Global Storm-Resolving Simulations, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 14, e2021MS002794, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002794, 2022. a
Brunner, M. I. and Naveau, P.: Spatial variability in Alpine reservoir regulation: deriving reservoir operations from streamflow using generalized additive models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 673–687, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-673-2023, 2023. a
Brunner, M. I., Slater, L., Tallaksen, L. M., and Clark, M.: Challenges in modeling and predicting floods and droughts: A review, Wiley Interdisciplin. Rev.: Water, 8, e1520, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1520, 2021. a
Burnash, R. J., Ferral, R. L., and McGuire, R. A.: A generalized streamflow simulation system: Conceptual modeling for digital computers, US Department of Commerce, National Weather Service, and State of California, Department of Water Resource, 1973. a
Cao, J., Wang, H., Li, J., Tian, Q., and Niyogi, D.:
Improving the Forecasting of Winter Wheat Yields in Northern China with Machine Learning–Dynamical Hybrid Subseasonal-to-Seasonal Ensemble Prediction, Remote Sens.-Basel, 14, 1707, 2022. a
Chang, A. Y., Bogner, K., Grams, C. M., Monhart, S., Domeisen, D. I., and Zappa, M.: Exploring the use of European weather regimes for improving user-relevant hydrological forecasts at the sub-seasonal scale in Switzerland, J. Hydrometeorol., in review, 2022. a
Cohen, J., Coumou, D., Hwang, J., Mackey, L., Orenstein, P., Totz, S., and Tziperman, E.: S2S Reboot: An Argument for Greater Inclusion of Machine Learning in Subseasonal to Seasonal Forecasts, WIREs Climate Change, 10, e00567, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.567, 2019. a, b
Coxon, G., Addor, N., Bloomfield, J. P., Freer, J., Fry, M., Hannaford, J., Howden, N. J. K., Lane, R., Lewis, M., Robinson, E. L., Wagener, T., and Woods, R.:
CAMELS-GB: hydrometeorological time series and landscape attributes for 671 catchments in Great Britain, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2459–2483, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2459-2020, 2020. a, b
Crawford, N. and Thurin, S.: Hydrologic estimates for small hydroelectric projects. Small Decentralized Hydropower Program, International Programs Division, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Washington, DC, USA, 1981. a
Dixon, S. G. and Wilby, R. L.:
A seasonal forecasting procedure for reservoir inflows in Central Asia, River Res. Appl., 35, 1141–1154, 2019. a
Donegan, S., Murphy, C., Harrigan, S., Broderick, C., Foran Quinn, D., Golian, S., Knight, J., Matthews, T., Prudhomme, C., Scaife, A. A., Stringer, N., and Wilby, R. L.:
Conditioning ensemble streamflow prediction with the North Atlantic Oscillation improves skill at longer lead times, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 4159–4183, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-4159-2021, 2021. a
Duan, Q., Pappenberger, F., Wood, A., Cloke, H. L., and Schaake, J.: Handbook of hydrometeorological ensemble forecasting, vol. 845, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, ISBN 978-3-642-39924-4, 2019. a
Duan, S., Ullrich, P., and Shu, L.: Using convolutional neural networks for streamflow projection in california, Front. Water, 2, Frontiers in Water, 2, 28, https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2020.00028, 2020. a, b
Emerton, R., Zsoter, E., Arnal, L., Cloke, H. L., Muraro, D., Prudhomme, C., Stephens, E. M., Salamon, P., and Pappenberger, F.:
Developing a global operational seasonal hydro-meteorological forecasting system: GloFAS-Seasonal v1.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3327–3346, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3327-2018, 2018. a
Environment Agency: Flood Hydrology Roadmap: Roadmap development and the action plan (FRS18196/R1), Tech. rep., https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62335ac2e90e070a54e18185/FRS18196_Flood_hydrology_roadmap_-_report.pdf (last access: 6 May 2023), 2022. a
Essenfelder, A. H., Larosa, F., Mazzoli, P., Bagli, S., Broccoli, D., Luzzi, V., Mysiak, J., Mercogliano, P., and dalla Valle, F.:
Smart Climate Hydropower Tool: A Machine-Learning Seasonal Forecasting Climate Service to Support Cost–Benefit Analysis of Reservoir Management, Atmosphere, 11, 1305, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11121305, 2020. a, b, c
Fang, K. and Shen, C.:
Near-Real-Time Forecast of Satellite-Based Soil Moisture Using Long Short-Term Memory with an Adaptive Data Integration Kernel, J. Hydrometeorol., 21, 399–413, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-19-0169.1, 2020a. a
Fang, K. and Shen, C.:
Near-real-time forecast of satellite-based soil moisture using long short-term memory with an adaptive data integration kernel, J. Hydrometeorol., 21, 399–413, 2020b. a
Fang, K., Shen, C., Kifer, D., and Yang, X.:
Prolongation of SMAP to spatiotemporally seamless coverage of continental U. S. using a deep learning neural network, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 11030–11039, 2017. a
Fang, K., Kifer, D., Lawson, K., Feng, D., and Shen, C.:
The Data Synergy Effects of Time-Series Deep Learning Models in Hydrology, Water Resour. Res., 58, e2021WR029583, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR029583, 2022. a, b
Feng, D., Fang, K., and Shen, C.: Enhancing Streamflow Forecast and Extracting Insights Using Long-Short Term Memory Networks With Data Integration at Continental Scales, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2019WR026793, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026793, 2020. a, b
Feng, D., Lawson, K., and Shen, C.:
Mitigating Prediction Error of Deep Learning Streamflow Models in Large Data-Sparse Regions With Ensemble Modeling and Soft Data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL092999, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL092999, 2021. a, b
Feng, D., Beck, H., Lawson, K., and Shen, C.:
The suitability of differentiable, learnable hydrologic models for ungauged regions and climate change impact assessment, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-245, in review, 2022a. a, b
Feng, D., Liu, J., Lawson, K., and Shen, C.: Differentiable, Learnable, Regionalized Process-Based Models With Multiphysical Outputs can Approach State-Of-The-Art Hydrologic Prediction Accuracy, Water Resour. Res., 58, e2022WR032404, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR032404, 2022b. a, b
Fleming, S. W., Garen, D. C., Goodbody, A. G., McCarthy, C. S., and Landers, L. C.:
Assessing the new Natural Resources Conservation Service water supply forecast model for the American West: A challenging test of explainable, automated, ensemble artificial intelligence, J. Hydrol., 602, 126782, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126782, 2021. a
Flora, M. L., Potvin, C. K., Skinner, P. S., Handler, S., and McGovern, A.:
Using Machine Learning to Generate Storm-Scale Probabilistic Guidance of Severe Weather Hazards in the Warn-on-Forecast System, Mon. Weather Rev., 149, 1535–1557, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-20-0194.1, 2021. a
Frame, J. M., Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Gauch, M., Shalev, G., Gilon, O., Qualls, L. M., Gupta, H. V., and Nearing, G. S.:
Deep learning rainfall–runoff predictions of extreme events, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3377–3392, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3377-2022, 2022a. a, b, c
Frame, J., Ullrich, P., Nearing, G., Gupta, H., and Kratzert, F.:
On strictly enforced mass conservation constraints for modeling the rainfall-runoff process, Earth ArXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.31223/X5BH0P, 2022b. a, b
Freeze, R. A. and Harlan, R.:
Blueprint for a physically-based, digitally-simulated hydrologic response model, J. Hydrol., 9, 237–258, 1969. a
Fundel, F., Jörg-Hess, S., and Zappa, M.:
Monthly hydrometeorological ensemble prediction of streamflow droughts and corresponding drought indices, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 395–407, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-395-2013, 2013. a
Garen, D. C.:
Improved techniques in regression-based streamflow volume forecasting, J. Water Res. Pl., 118, 654–670, 1992. a
Gibson, P. B., Chapman, W. E., Altinok, A., Delle Monache, L., DeFlorio, M. J., and Waliser, D. E.:
Training Machine Learning Models on Climate Model Output Yields Skillful Interpretable Seasonal Precipitation Forecasts, Communications Earth & Environment, 2, 159, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00225-4, 2021. a, b
Golian, S., Murphy, C., and Meresa, H.: Regionalization of hydrological models for flow estimation in ungauged catchments in Ireland, Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 36, 100859, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2021.100859, 2021. a
Grönquist, P., Yao, C., Ben-Nun, T., Dryden, N., Dueben, P., Li, S., and Hoefler, T.:
Deep Learning for Post-Processing Ensemble Weather Forecasts, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 379, 20200092, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2020.0092, 2021. a
Gupta, J., Molnar, C., Xie, Y., Knight, J., and Shekhar, S.: Spatial Variability Aware Deep Neural Networks (SVANN): A General Approach, ACM T. Intel. Syst. Tech., 12, 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1145/3466688, 2021. a
Hagen, J. S., Leblois, E., Lawrence, D., Solomatine, D., and Sorteberg, A.:
Identifying major drivers of daily streamflow from large-scale atmospheric circulation with machine learning, J. Hydrol., 596, 126086, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126086, 2021. a
Han, S., Slater, L., Wilby, R. L., and Faulkner, D.: Contribution of Urbanisation to Non-stationary River Flow in the UK, J. Hydrol., 613, 128417, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128417, 2022. a
Hapuarachchi, H. A. P., Bari, M. A., Kabir, A., Hasan, M. M., Woldemeskel, F. M., Gamage, N., Sunter, P. D., Zhang, X. S., Robertson, D. E., Bennett, J. C., and Feikema, P. M.:
Development of a national 7-day ensemble streamflow forecasting service for Australia, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4801–4821, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4801-2022, 2022. a
Harrigan, S., Zsoter, E., Cloke, H., Salamon, P., and Prudhomme, C.:
Daily ensemble river discharge reforecasts and real-time forecasts from the operational Global Flood Awareness System, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1–19, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1-2023, 2023. a
Harris, L., McRae, A. T., Chantry, M., Dueben, P. D., and Palmer, T. N.:
A Generative Deep Learning Approach to Stochastic Downscaling of Precipitation Forecasts, arXiv [preprint], arXiv:2204.02028, 2022. a
Haupt, S. E., Gagne, D. J., Hsieh, W. W., Krasnopolsky, V., McGovern, A., Marzban, C., Moninger, W., Lakshmanan, V., Tissot, P., and Williams, J. K.:
The History and Practice of AI in the Environmental Sciences, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 103, E1351–E1370, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-20-0234.1, 2022. a
Hauswirth, S. M., Bierkens, M. F. P., Beijk, V., and Wanders, N.:
The suitability of a seasonal ensemble hybrid framework including data-driven approaches for hydrological forecasting, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 501–517, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-501-2023, 2023. a, b
Hemri, S., Fundel, F., and Zappa, M.:
Simultaneous calibration of ensemble river flow predictions over an entire range of lead times, Water Resour. Res., 49, 6744–6755, https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20542, 2013. a
Hoedt, P.-J., Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Halmich, C., Holzleitner, M., Nearing, G. S., Hochreiter, S., and Klambauer, G.: Mc-lstm: Mass-conserving LSTM, Vol. 139, International Conference on Machine Learning, 18–24 July 2021, Virtual, 4275–4286, https://proceedings.mlr.press/v139/hoedt21a.html (last access: 6 May 2023), 2021. a
Jain, S. K., Mani, P., Jain, S. K., Prakash, P., Singh, V. P., Tullos, D., Kumar, S., Agarwal, S., and Dimri, A.:
A Brief review of flood forecasting techniques and their applications, International Journal of River Basin Management, 16, 329–344, 2018. a
Jörg-Hess, S., Griessinger, N., and Zappa, M.:
Probabilistic Forecasts of Snow Water Equivalent and Runoff in Mountainous Areas, J. Hydrometeorol., 16, 2169–2186, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-14-0193.1, 2015. a
Kang, N. and Elsner, J. B.:
Interpretation of the statistical/dynamical prediction for seasonal tropical storm frequency in the western North Pacific, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 014017, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abcdd3, 2020. a, b
Khouakhi, A., Villarini, G., Zhang, W., and Slater, L. J.: Seasonal predictability of high sea level frequency using ENSO patterns along the US West Coast, Adv. Water Resour., 131, 103377, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2019.07.007, 2019. a
Kirtman, B. P., Min, D., Infanti, J. M., Kinter, J. L., Paolino, D. A., Zhang, Q., Van Den Dool, H., Saha, S., Mendez, M. P., Becker, E., and Peng, P: The North American multimodel ensemble: phase-1 seasonal-to-interannual prediction; phase-2 toward developing intraseasonal prediction, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 95, 585–601, 2014. a
Klotzbach, P., Caron, L.-P., and Bell, M.: A statistical/dynamical model for North Atlantic seasonal hurricane prediction, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL089357, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089357, 2020. a
Krabbenhoft, C. A.:
Assessing placement bias of the global river gauge network, Nature Sustainability, 5, 10, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00873-0, 2022. a
Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Shalev, G., Klambauer, G., Hochreiter, S., and Nearing, G.:
Towards learning universal, regional, and local hydrological behaviors via machine learning applied to large-sample datasets, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 5089–5110, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-5089-2019, 2019b. a
Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Hochreiter, S., and Nearing, G. S.:
A note on leveraging synergy in multiple meteorological data sets with deep learning for rainfall–runoff modeling, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2685–2703, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2685-2021, 2021. a, b
Kratzert, F., Nearing, G., Addor, N., Erickson, T., Gauch, M., Gilon, O., Gudmundsson, L., Hassidim, A., Klotz, D., Nevo, S., and Shalev, G.: Caravan-A global community dataset for large-sample hydrology, Scientific Data, 10, 61, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-01975-w, 2023. a, b, c
Kumanlioglu, A. A. and Fistikoglu, O.:
Performance enhancement of a conceptual hydrological model by integrating artificial intelligence, J. Hydrol. Eng., 24, 04019047, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001850, 2019. a
Lees, T., Buechel, M., Anderson, B., Slater, L., Reece, S., Coxon, G., and Dadson, S. J.:
Benchmarking data-driven rainfall–runoff models in Great Britain: a comparison of long short-term memory (LSTM)-based models with four lumped conceptual models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5517–5534, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5517-2021, 2021. a, b, c
Lees, T., Reece, S., Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Gauch, M., De Bruijn, J., Kumar Sahu, R., Greve, P., Slater, L., and Dadson, S. J.:
Hydrological concept formation inside long short-term memory (LSTM) networks, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3079–3101, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3079-2022, 2022. a, b
Lehner, F., Wood, A. W., Llewellyn, D., Blatchford, D. B., Goodbody, A. G., and Pappenberger, F.:
Mitigating the impacts of climate nonstationarity on seasonal streamflow predictability in the US Southwest, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 12–208, 2017. a
Li, Y., Wu, Z., He, H., and Yin, H.:
Probabilistic subseasonal precipitation forecasts using preceding atmospheric intraseasonal signals in a Bayesian perspective, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4975–4994, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4975-2022, 2022. a
Liu, W., Yang, T., Sun, F., Wang, H., Feng, Y., and Du, M.: Observation-constrained projection of global flood magnitudes with anthropogenic warming, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR028830, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028830, 2021. a, b, c
López, J. and Francés, F.:
Non-stationary flood frequency analysis in continental Spanish rivers, using climate and reservoir indices as external covariates, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 3189–3203, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3189-2013, 2013. a
Ma, J., Sun, J., and Liu, C.: A hybrid statistical-dynamical prediction scheme for summer monthly precipitation over Northeast China, Meteorol. Appl., 29, e2057, https://doi.org/10.1002/met.2057, 2022. a
Ma, K., Feng, D., Lawson, K., Tsai, W.-P., Liang, C., Huang, X., Sharma, A., and Shen, C.:
Transferring Hydrologic Data Across Continents – Leveraging Data-Rich Regions to Improve Hydrologic Prediction in Data-Sparse Regions, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR028600, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028600, 2021. a
Mai, J., Shen, H., Tolson, B. A., Gaborit, É., Arsenault, R., Craig, J. R., Fortin, V., Fry, L. M., Gauch, M., Klotz, D., Kratzert, F., O'Brien, N., Princz, D. G., Rasiya Koya, S., Roy, T., Seglenieks, F., Shrestha, N. K., Temgoua, A. G. T., Vionnet, V., and Waddell, J. W.:
The Great Lakes Runoff Intercomparison Project Phase 4: the Great Lakes (GRIP-GL), Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3537–3572, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3537-2022, 2022. a, b, c, d
Massoud, E. C., Lee, H., Gibson, P. B., Loikith, P., and Waliser, D. E.:
Bayesian Model Averaging of Climate Model Projections Constrained by Precipitation Observations over the Contiguous United States, J. Hydrometeorol., 21, 2401–2418, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-19-0258.1, 2020. a
McInerney, D., Thyer, M., Kavetski, D., Laugesen, R., Woldemeskel, F., Tuteja, N., and Kuczera, G.:
Seamless streamflow forecasting at daily to monthly scales: MuTHRE lets you have your cake and eat it too, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5669–5683, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5669-2022, 2022. a
Meißner, D., Klein, B., and Ionita, M.:
Development of a monthly to seasonal forecast framework tailored to inland waterway transport in central Europe, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 6401–6423, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-6401-2017, 2017. a, b
Mendoza, P. A., Wood, A. W., Clark, E., Rothwell, E., Clark, M. P., Nijssen, B., Brekke, L. D., and Arnold, J. R.:
An intercomparison of approaches for improving operational seasonal streamflow forecasts, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 3915–3935, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-3915-2017, 2017. a, b
Met Office, Environment Agency and Flood Forecasting Centre:
Talking the Same Language. Updated with learning from the 2012 Floods, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/business/public-sector/hazard-manager/glossary_for_talking_the_same_language.pdf (last access: 6 May 2023), 2013. a
Miao, Q., Pan, B., Wang, H., Hsu, K., and Sorooshian, S.:
Improving monsoon precipitation prediction using combined convolutional and long short term memory neural network, Water, 11, 977, https://doi.org/10.3390/w11050977, 2019. a
Milly, P. C., Betancourt, J., Falkenmark, M., Hirsch, R. M., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Stouffer, R. J.:
Stationarity is dead: Whither water management?, Science, 319, 573–574, 2008. a
Mohammadi, B., Moazenzadeh, R., Christian, K., and Duan, Z.:
Improving streamflow simulation by combining hydrological process-driven and artificial intelligence-based models, Environ. Sci. Pollut. R., 28, 65752–65768, 2021. a
Monhart, S., Zappa, M., Spirig, C., Schär, C., and Bogner, K.:
Subseasonal hydrometeorological ensemble predictions in small- and medium-sized mountainous catchments: benefits of the NWP approach, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 493–513, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-493-2019, 2019. a
Moon, S.-H., Kim, Y.-H., Lee, Y. H., and Moon, B.-R.:
Application of machine learning to an early warning system for very short-term heavy rainfall, J. Hydrol., 568, 1042–1054, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.11.060, 2019. a
Mosavi, A., Ozturk, P., and Chau, K.-W.: Flood prediction using machine learning models: Literature review, Water, 10, 1536, https://doi.org/10.3390/w10111536, 2018. a, b, c
Moulds, S., Buytaert, W., and Mijic, A.:
An open and extensible framework for spatially explicit land use change modelling: the lulcc R package, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3215–3229, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3215-2015, 2015. a
Moulds, S., Slater, Louise Dunstone, N., and Smith, D.:
Skillful decadal flood prediction, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL100650, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL100650, 2023. a, b, c, d
Najafi, H., Robertson, A. W., Massah Bavani, A. R., Irannejad, P., Wanders, N., and Wood, E. F.:
Improved multi-model ensemble forecasts of Iran's precipitation and temperature using a hybrid dynamical-statistical approach during fall and winter seasons, Int. J. Climatol., 41, 5698–5725, 2021. a
Nash, J. E. and Sutcliffe, J. V.:
River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles, J. Hydrol., 10, 282–290, 1970. a
Neal, R., Fereday, D., Crocker, R., and Comer, R. E.:
A flexible approach to defining weather patterns and their application in weather forecasting over Europe, Meteorol. Appl., 23, 389–400, 2016. a
Neal, R., Dankers, R., Saulter, A., Lane, A., Millard, J., Robbins, G., and Price, D.:
Use of probabilistic medium-to long-range weather-pattern forecasts for identifying periods with an increased likelihood of coastal flooding around the UK, Meteorol. Appl., 25, 534–547, 2018. a
Nearing, G. S., Kratzert, F., Sampson, A. K., Pelissier, C. S., Klotz, D., Frame, J. M., Prieto, C., and Gupta, H. V.: What role does hydrological science play in the age of machine learning?, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR028091, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028091, 2021. a
Nearing, G. S., Klotz, D., Frame, J. M., Gauch, M., Gilon, O., Kratzert, F., Sampson, A. K., Shalev, G., and Nevo, S.:
Technical note: Data assimilation and autoregression for using near-real-time streamflow observations in long short-term memory networks, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5493–5513, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5493-2022, 2022. a, b
Neri, A., Villarini, G., and Napolitano, F.:
Intraseasonal predictability of the duration of flooding above National Weather Service flood warning levels across the US Midwest, Hydrol. Process., 34, 4505–4511, 2020. a
Nevo, S., Morin, E., Gerzi Rosenthal, A., Metzger, A., Barshai, C., Weitzner, D., Voloshin, D., Kratzert, F., Elidan, G., Dror, G., Begelman, G., Nearing, G., Shalev, G., Noga, H., Shavitt, I., Yuklea, L., Royz, M., Giladi, N., Peled Levi, N., Reich, O., Gilon, O., Maor, R., Timnat, S., Shechter, T., Anisimov, V., Gigi, Y., Levin, Y., Moshe, Z., Ben-Haim, Z., Hassidim, A., and Matias, Y.:
Flood forecasting with machine learning models in an operational framework, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4013–4032, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4013-2022, 2022. a, b, c
Newman, A. J., Clark, M. P., Sampson, K., Wood, A., Hay, L. E., Bock, A., Viger, R. J., Blodgett, D., Brekke, L., Arnold, J. R., Hopson, T., and Duan, Q.:
Development of a large-sample watershed-scale hydrometeorological data set for the contiguous USA: data set characteristics and assessment of regional variability in hydrologic model performance, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 209–223, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-209-2015, 2015. a
Nilsson, P., Uvo, C., and Berndtsson, R.:
Monthly runoff simulation: Comparing and combining conceptual and neural network models., J. Hydrol., 321, 344–363, 2006. a
NOAA: National Water Model: Improving NOAA's Water Prediction Services, https://water.noaa.gov/documents/wrn-national-water-model.pdf (last access: 6 May 2023), 2016. a
Okkan, U., Ersoy, Z., Kumanlioglu, A., and Fistikoglu, O.: Embedding machine learning techniques into a conceptual model to improve monthly runoff simulation: A nested hybrid rainfall-runoff modeling, J. Hydrol., 598, 126433, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126433, 2021. a
Ouyang, W., Lawson, K., Feng, D., Ye, L., Zhang, C., and Shen, C.:
Continental-scale streamflow modeling of basins with reservoirs: Towards a coherent deep-learning-based strategy, J. Hydrol., 599, 126455, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126455, 2021. a, b
Pan, B., Anderson, G. J., Goncalves, A., Lucas, D. D., Bonfils, C. J. W., and Lee, J.:
Improving Seasonal Forecast Using Probabilistic Deep Learning, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 14, e2021MS002766, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002766, 2022. a
Pegion, K., Kirtman, B. P., Becker, E., Collins, D. C., LaJoie, E., Burgman, R., Bell, R., DelSole, T., Min, D., Zhu, Y., and Li, W.: The Subseasonal Experiment (SubX): A multimodel subseasonal prediction experiment, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 100, 2043–2060, 2019. a
Perrin, C., Michel, C., and Andréeassian, V.:
Improvement of a parsimonious model for streamflow simulation, J. Hydrol., 279, 275–289, 2003. a
Piadeh, F., Behzadian, K., and Alani, A. M.:
A critical review of real-time modelling of flood forecasting in urban drainage systems, J. Hydrol., 607, 127476, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127476, 2022. a
Pilling, C., Dodds, V., Cranston, M., Price, D., Harrison, T., and How, A.:
Flood forecasting—A national overview for great britain, in: Flood forecasting, Elsevier, 201–247, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801884-2.00009-8, 2016. a
Ravuri, S., Lenc, K., Willson, M., Kangin, D., Lam, R., Mirowski, P., Fitzsimons, M., Athanassiadou, M., Kashem, S., Madge, S., Prudden, R., Mandhane, A., Clark, A., Brock, A., Simonyan, K., Hadsell, R., Robinson, N., Clancy, E., Arribas, A., and Mohamed, S.:
Skilful Precipitation Nowcasting Using Deep Generative Models of Radar, Nature, 597, 672–677, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03854-z, 2021. a
Ren, W., Yang, T., Huang, C., Xu, C., and Shao, Q.:
Improving monthly streamflow prediction in Alpine regions: integrating HBV model with Bayesian neural network, Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A., 32, 3381–3396, 2018. a
Renard, B. and Thyer, M.:
Revealing hidden climate indices from the occurrence of hydrologic extremes, Water Resour. Res., 55, 7662–7681, 2019. a
Renard, B., Thyer, M., McInerney, D., Kavetski, D., Leonard, M., and Westra, S.: A Hidden Climate Indices Modeling Framework for Multivariable Space-Time Data, Water Resour. Res., 58, e2021WR030007, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR030007, 2022. a
Rözer, V., Peche, A., Berkhahn, S., Feng, Y., Fuchs, L., Graf, T., Haberlandt, U., Kreibich, H., Sämann, R., Sester, M., and Shehu, B.: Impact-based forecasting for pluvial floods, Earths Future, 9, 2020EF001851, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001851, 2021. a, b
Sahu, N., Robertson, A. W., Boer, R., Behera, S., DeWitt, D. G., Takara, K., Kumar, M., and Singh, R.:
Probabilistic seasonal streamflow forecasts of the Citarum River, Indonesia, based on general circulation models, Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A., 31, 1747–1758, 2017. a
Salvi, K., Villarini, G., and Vecchi, G. A.:
High resolution decadal precipitation predictions over the continental United States for impacts assessment, J. Hydrol., 553, 559–573, 2017a. a
Salvi, K., Villarini, G., Vecchi, G. A., and Ghosh, S.:
Decadal temperature predictions over the continental United States: Analysis and Enhancement, Clim. Dynam., 49, 3587–3604, 2017b. a
Scher, S., Jewson, S., and Messori, G.:
Robust Worst-Case Scenarios from Ensemble Forecasts, Weather Forecast., 36, 1357–1373, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-20-0219.1, 2021. a
Schick, S., Rössler, O., and Weingartner, R.:
Monthly streamflow forecasting at varying spatial scales in the Rhine basin, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 929–942, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-929-2018, 2018. a
Schlef, K. E., François, B., and Brown, C.: Comparing flood projection approaches across hydro-climatologically diverse United States river basins, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2019WR025861, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025861, 2021. a, b
Shen, C., Appling, A. P., Gentine, P., Bandai, T., Gupta, H., Tartakovsky, A., Baity-Jesi, M., Fenicia, F., Kifer, D., Li, L., and Liu, X.: Differentiable modeling to unify machine learning and physical models and advance Geosciences, arXiv [preprint], arXiv:2301.04027, 2023. a
Shi, X., Chen, Z., Wang, H., Yeung, D.-Y., Wong, W.-K., and Woo, W.-c.:
Convolutional LSTM network: A machine learning approach for precipitation nowcasting, Adv. Neur. In., https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2015/file/07563a3fe3bbe7e3ba84431ad9d055af-Paper.pdf (last access: 6 May 2023), 2015. a
Sivapalan, M.:
Prediction in Ungauged Basins: A Grand Challenge for Theoretical Hydrology, Hydrol. Process., 17, 3163–3170, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5155, 2003. a
Slater, L. J., Anderson, B., Buechel, M., Dadson, S., Han, S., Harrigan, S., Kelder, T., Kowal, K., Lees, T., Matthews, T., Murphy, C., and Wilby, R. L.:
Nonstationary weather and water extremes: a review of methods for their detection, attribution, and management, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3897–3935, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3897-2021, 2021. a
Slater, L. J., Huntingford, C., Pywell, R. F., Redhead, J. W., and Kendon, E. J.:
Resilience of UK crop yields to compound climate change, Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1377–1396, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1377-2022, 2022. a
Smith, D. M., Scaife, A. A., Eade, R., Athanasiadis, P., Bellucci, A., Bethke, I., Bilbao, R., Borchert, L. F., Caron, L.-P., Counillon, F., Danabasoglu, G., Delworth, T., Doblas-Reyes, F. J., Dunstone, N. J., Estella-Perez, V., Flavoni, S., Hermanson, L., Keenlyside, N., Kharin, V., Kimoto, M., Merryfield, W. J., Mignot, J., Mochizuki, T., Modali, K., Monerie, P.-A., Müller, W. A., Nicolí, D., Ortega, P., Pankatz, K., Pohlmann, H., Robson, J., Ruggieri, P., Sospedra-Alfonso, R., Swingedouw, D., Wang, Y., Wild, S., Yeager, S., Yang, X., and Zhang, L.:
North Atlantic Climate Far More Predictable than Models Imply, Nature, 583, 796–800, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2525-0, 2020. a, b, c
Smith, P., Pappenberger, F., Wetterhall, F., Thielen del Pozo, J., Krzeminski, B., Salamon, P., Muraro, D., Kalas, M., and Baugh, C.:
Chapter 11 – On the Operational Implementation of the European Flood Awareness System (EFAS), in: Flood Forecasting, edited by Adams, T. E. and Pagano, T. C., Academic Press, Boston, 313–348, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801884-2.00011-6, 2016. a
Speight, L. J., Cranston, M. D., White, C. J., and Kelly, L.: Operational and emerging capabilities for surface water flood forecasting, WIREs: Water, 8, e1517, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1517, 2021. a, b
Thielen, J., Bartholmes, J., Ramos, M.-H., and de Roo, A.:
The European Flood Alert System – Part 1: Concept and development, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 125–140, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-125-2009, 2009. a
Thielen-del Pozo, J. and Bruen, M.: Overview of forecast communication and use of ensemble hydrometeorological forecasts, Handbook of Hydrometeorological Ensemble Forecasting, Springer, 1037–1045, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40457-3_40-1, 2019. a
Toms, B. A., Barnes, E. A., and Ebert-Uphoff, I.: Physically Interpretable Neural Networks for the Geosciences: Applications to Earth System Variability, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS002002, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002002, 2020. a
Troin, M., Arsenault, R., Wood, A. W., Brissette, F., and Martel, J.-L.:
Generating ensemble streamflow forecasts: A review of methods and approaches over the past 40 years, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR028392, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028392, 2021. a
Tsai, W.-P., Feng, D., Pan, M., Beck, H., Lawson, K., Yang, Y., Liu, J., and Shen, C.:
From Calibration to Parameter Learning: Harnessing the Scaling Effects of Big Data in Geoscientific Modeling, Nat. Commun., 12, 5988, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26107-z, 2021. a, b
Unger, D. A., van den Dool, H., O'Lenic, E., and Collins, D.:
Ensemble regression, Mon. Weather Rev., 137, 2365–2379, 2009. a
Van Loon, A. F., Rangecroft, S., Coxon, G., Werner, M., Wanders, N., Di Baldassarre, G., Tijdeman, E., Bosman, M., Gleeson, T., Nauditt, A., and Aghakouchak, A.: Streamflow droughts aggravated by human activities despite management, Environ. Res. Lett., 17, 044059, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac5def, 2022. a
Vecchi, G. A., Zhao, M., Wang, H., Villarini, G., Rosati, A., Kumar, A., Held, I. M., and Gudgel, R.:
Statistical–dynamical predictions of seasonal North Atlantic hurricane activity, Mon. Weather Rev., 139, 1070–1082, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010MWR3499.1, 2011. a, b, c
Villarini, G., Luitel, B., Vecchi, G. A., and Ghosh, J.:
Multi-model ensemble forecasting of North Atlantic tropical cyclone activity, Clim. Dynam., 53, 7461–7477, 2019. a
Watt-Meyer, O., Brenowitz, N. D., Clark, S. K., Henn, B., Kwa, A., McGibbon, J., Perkins, W. A., and Bretherton, C. S.: Correcting weather and climate models by machine learning nudged historical simulations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL092555, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL092555, 2021. a, b, c, d
Wilby, R., Abrahart, R., and Dawson, C.:
Detection of conceptual model rainfall—runoff processes inside an artificial neural network, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 48, 163–181, 2003. a
Wilby, R. L., Wedgbrow, C. S., and Fox, H. R.:
Seasonal predictability of the summer hydrometeorology of the River Thames, UK, J. Hydrol., 295, 1–16, 2004. a
Wood, A. and Schaake, J.:
Correcting Errors in Streamflow Forecast Ensemble Mean and Spread, J. Hydrometeorol., 9, 132–148, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JHM862.1, 2008.
a
World Meteorological Organization: Guidelines on Seasonal Hydrological Prediction (WMO-No. 1274), Tech. rep., ISBN 978-92-63-11274-3, https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=11081 (last access: 6 May 2023), 2021. a
Wu, Z., Yin, H., He, H., and Li, Y.: Dynamic-LSTM hybrid models to improve seasonal drought predictions over China, J. Hydrol., 615, 128706, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128706, 2022. a, b, c
Xu, T., Longyang, Q., Tyson, C., Zeng, R., and Neilson, B. T.:
Hybrid Physically Based and Deep Learning Modeling of a Snow Dominated, Mountainous, Karst Watershed, Water Resour. Res., 58, e2021WR030993, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR030993, 2022. a
Zappa, M., Rotach, M. W., Arpagaus, M., Dorninger, M., Hegg, C., Montani, A., Ranzi, R., Ament, F., Germann, U., Grossi, G., Jaun, S., Rossa, A., Vogt, S., Walser, A., Wehrhan, J., and Wunram, C.:
MAP D-PHASE: real-time demonstration of hydrological ensemble prediction systems, Atmos. Sci. Lett., 9, 80–87, https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.183, 2008. a
Zhang, B., Wang, S., Qing, Y., Zhu, J., Wang, D., and Liu, J.: A vine copula-based polynomial chaos framework for improving multi-model hydroclimatic projections at a multi-decadal convection-permitting scale, Water Resour. Res., 58, e2022WR031954, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR031954, 2022. a
Zhang, W., Villarini, G., Slater, L., Vecchi, G. A., and Bradley, A. A.:
Improved ENSO forecasting using bayesian updating and the North American multimodel ensemble (NMME), J. Climate, 30, 9007–9025, 2017. a
Short summary
Hybrid forecasting systems combine data-driven methods with physics-based weather and climate models to improve the accuracy of predictions for meteorological and hydroclimatic events such as rainfall, temperature, streamflow, floods, droughts, tropical cyclones, or atmospheric rivers. We review recent developments in hybrid forecasting and outline key challenges and opportunities in the field.
Hybrid forecasting systems combine data-driven methods with physics-based weather and climate...
