Search

The Office of Hydrologic Development (OHD) of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS) conducted the two phases of the Distributed Model Intercomparison Project (DMIP) as cost-effective studies to guide the transition to spatially distributed hydrologic modeling for operational forecasting at NWS River Forecast Centers (RFCs). Phase 2 of the Distributed Model Intercomparison Project (DMIP 2) was formulated primarily as a mechanism to help guide the U.S. NWS as it expands its use of spatially distributed watershed models for operational river, flash flood, and water resources forecasting. The overall purpose of DMIP 2 was to test many distributed models forced by high quality operational data with a view towards meeting NWS operational forecasting needs. At the same time, DMIP 2 was formulated as an experiment that could be leveraged by the broader scientific community as a platform for the testing, evaluation, and improvement of distributed models.DMIP 2 contained experiments in two regions: in the DMIP 1 Oklahoma basins, and second, in two basins in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in the western USA. This paper presents the overview and results of the DMIP 2 experiments conducted for the two Sierra Nevada basins. Simulations from five independent groups from France, Italy, Spain and the USA were analyzed. Experiments included comparison of lumped and distributed model streamflow simulations generated with uncalibrated and calibrated parameters, and simulations of snow water equivalent (SWE) at interior locations. As in other phases of DMIP, the participant simulations were evaluated against observed hourly streamflow and SWE data and compared with simulations provided by the NWS operational lumped model. A wide range of statistical measures are used to evaluate model performance on a run-period and event basis. Differences between uncalibrated and calibrated model simulations are assessed.Results indicate that in the two study basins, no single model performed best in all cases. In addition, no distributed model was able to consistently outperform the lumped model benchmark. However, one or more distributed models were able to outperform the lumped model benchmark in many of the analyses. Several calibrated distributed models achieved higher correlation and lower bias than the calibrated lumped benchmark in the calibration, validation, and combined periods. Evaluating a number of specific precipitation-runoff events, one calibrated distributed model was able to perform at a level equal to or better than the calibrated lumped model benchmark in terms of event-averaged peak and runoff volume error. However, three distributed models were able to provide improved peak timing compared to the lumped benchmark. Taken together, calibrated distributed models provided specific improvements over the lumped benchmark in 24% of the model-basin pairs for peak flow, 12% of the model-basin pairs for event runoff volume, and 41% of the model-basin pairs for peak timing. Model calibration improved the performance statistics of nearly all models (lumped and distributed). Analysis of several precipitation/runoff events indicates that distributed models may more accurately model the dynamics of the rain/snow line (and resulting hydrologic conditions) compared to the lumped benchmark model. Analysis of SWE simulations shows that better results were achieved at higher elevation observation sites.Although the performance of distributed models was mixed compared to the lumped benchmark, all calibrated models performed well compared to results in the DMIP 2 Oklahoma basins in terms of run period correlation and %Bias, and event-averaged peak and runoff error. This finding is noteworthy considering that these Sierra Nevada basins have complications such as orographically-enhanced precipitation, snow accumulation and melt, rain on snow events, and highly variable topography. Looking at these findings and those from the previous DMIP experiments, it is clear that at this point in their evolution, distributed models have the potential to provide valuable information on specific flood events that could complement lumped model simulations. © 2013.

Calibration is an essential step for improving the accuracy of simulations generated using hydrologic models. A key modeling decision is selecting the performance metric to be optimized. It has been common to use squared error performance metrics, or normalized variants such as Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), based on the idea that their squared-error nature will emphasize the estimates of high flows. However, we conclude that NSE-based model calibrations actually result in poor reproduction of high-flow events, such as the annual peak flows that are used for flood frequency estimation. Using three different types of performance metrics, we calibrate two hydrological models at a daily step, the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model and the mesoscale Hydrologic Model (mHM), and evaluate their ability to simulate high-flow events for 492 basins throughout the contiguous United States. The metrics investigated are (1) NSE, (2) Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE) and its variants, and (3) annual peak flow bias (APFB), where the latter is an application-specific metric that focuses on annual peak flows. As expected, the APFB metric produces the best annual peak flow estimates; however, performance on other high-flow-related metrics is poor. In contrast, the use of NSE results in annual peak flow estimates that are more than 20 % worse, primarily due to the tendency of NSE to underestimate observed flow variability. On the other hand, the use of KGE results in annual peak flow estimates that are better than from NSE, owing to improved flow time series metrics (mean and variance), with only a slight degradation in performance with respect to other related metrics, particularly when a non-standard weighting of the components of KGE is used. Stochastically generated ensemble simulations based on model residuals show the ability to improve the high-flow metrics, regardless of the deterministic performances. However, we emphasize that improving the fidelity of streamflow dynamics from deterministically calibrated models is still important, as it may improve high-flow metrics (for the right reasons). Overall, this work highlights the need for a deeper understanding of performance metric behavior and design in relation to the desired goals of model calibration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

End users face a range of subjective decisions when evaluating climate change impacts on hydrology, but the importance of these decisions is rarely assessed. In this paper, we evaluate the implications of hydrologic modelling choices on projected changes in the annual water balance, monthly simulated processes, and signature measures (i.e. metrics that quantify characteristics of the hydrologic catchment response) under a future climate scenario. To this end, we compare hydrologic changes computed with four different model structures - whose parameters have been obtained using a common calibration strategy - with hydrologic changes computed with a single model structure and parameter sets from multiple options for different calibration decisions (objective function, local optima, and calibration forcing dataset). Results show that both model structure selection and the parameter estimation strategy affect the direction and magnitude of projected changes in the annual water balance, and that the relative effects of these decisions are basin dependent. The analysis of monthly changes illustrates that parameter estimation strategies can provide similar or larger uncertainties in simulations of some hydrologic processes when compared with uncertainties coming from model choice. We found that the relative effects of modelling decisions on projected changes in catchment behaviour depend on the signature measure analysed. Furthermore, parameter sets with similar performance, but located in different regions of the parameter space, provide very different projections for future catchment behaviour. More generally, the results obtained in this study prompt the need to incorporate parametric uncertainty in multi-model frameworks to avoid an over-confident portrayal of climate change impacts. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]