Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/hessd-12-10289-2015
https://doi.org/10.5194/hessd-12-10289-2015

  09 Oct 2015

09 Oct 2015

Review status: this preprint was under review for the journal HESS. A revision for further review has not been submitted.

Evaluation of five hydrological models across Europe and their suitability for making projections under climate change

W. Greuell1, J. C. M. Andersson2, C. Donnelly2, L. Feyen3, D. Gerten4, F. Ludwig1, G. Pisacane5, P. Roudier3, and S. Schaphoff4 W. Greuell et al.
  • 1Earth System Sciences (ESS) group, Wageningen University and Research centre, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands
  • 2SMHI – Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, Hydrological Research, 601 76 Norrköping, Sweden
  • 3Climate and Risk management unit, Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES), Joint Research Centre (JRC), European Commission (EC), Via Enrico Fermi, 2749, 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
  • 4Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Research Domain I: Earth System Analysis, Telegrafenberg A62, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
  • 5Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), Lungotevere Thaon di Revel, 76 – 00196 Rome, Italy

Abstract. The main aims of this paper are the evaluation of five large-scale hydrological models across Europe and the assessment of the suitability of the models for making projections under climate change. For the evaluation, 22 years of discharge measurements from 46 large catchments were exploited. In the reference simulations forcing was taken from the E-OBS dataset for precipitation and temperature, and from the WFDEI dataset for other variables. On average across all catchments, biases were small for four of the models, ranging between −29 and +23 mm yr−1 (−9 and +8 %), while one model produced a large negative bias (−117 mm yr−1; −38 %). Despite large differences in e.g. the evapotranspiration schemes, the skill to simulate interannual variability did not differ much between the models, which can be ascribed to the dominant effect of interannual variation in precipitation on interannual variation in discharge. Assuming that the skill of a model to simulate interannual variability provides a measure for the model's ability to make projections under climate change, the skill of future discharge projections will not differ much between models. The quality of the simulation of the mean annual cycles, and low and high discharge was found to be related to the degree of calibration of the models, with the more calibrated models outperforming the crudely and non-calibrated models. The sensitivity to forcing was investigated by carrying out alternative simulations with all forcing variables from WFDEI, which increased biases by between +66 and +85 mm yr−1 (21–28 %), significantly changed the inter-model ranking of the skill to simulate the mean and increased the magnitude of interannual variability by 28 %, on average.

W. Greuell et al.

 
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
 
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

W. Greuell et al.

W. Greuell et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 1,487 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
953 489 45 1,487 55 73
  • HTML: 953
  • PDF: 489
  • XML: 45
  • Total: 1,487
  • BibTeX: 55
  • EndNote: 73
Views and downloads (calculated since 09 Oct 2015)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 09 Oct 2015)

Cited

Saved

Latest update: 24 Jun 2021
Download
Short summary
The main aims of this paper are the evaluation of five large-scale hydrological models across Europe and the assessment of the suitability of the models for making projections under climate change. While we found large inter-model differences in biases, the skill to simulate interannual variability in discharge did not differ much between the models. Assuming that the skill of a model to simulate interannual variability provides a measure for the model’s ability to make projections under climate