the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Learning from a large-scale calibration effort of multiple lake models
Abstract. Process-based hydrodynamic lake models are commonly used for simulating water temperature, enabling testing of different scenarios and drawing conclusions about possible water quality developments or changes in important ecological processes such as methane gas emissions. Even though there are several models available, a systematic comparison regarding their performance is missing so far. In this study, we calibrated four different one-dimensional hydrodynamic lake models for a global dataset of 73 lakes to compare their performance in reproducing water temperature and estimated parameter sensitivity for the calibrated parameters. The models performance and parameter sensitivity showed a relation to the lake characteristics and model structure. No single model was the best, with each model performing better than the rest in at least some of the lakes. From the findings, we advocate the application of model ensembles. Nonetheless, we also highlight the need to further improve both weather forcing data, individual models, and multi-model ensemble techniques.
- Preprint
(1119 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1303 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 04 Oct 2024)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2447', John Ding, 10 Aug 2024
reply
Figure 2. Distribution of the six evaluated performance metrics
In Figure 2, the histograms of the NSE (Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency) and R (Pearson correlation coefficient) highlight calibration results of four lake models on a daily step. The former is a variance-based, and the latter, a correlation-based metric. The simulated data counts cluster around a median value of 0.96 (an exact value not shown in the text) and of 0.98 (shown in Line 220), respectively, both at the upper end of their performance scale.
In a different context of rainfall-runoff modelling, for an observed hydrograph, Duc and Sawada (2023, Equation 25, Figure 2) show that the upper end/bound of the NSE is related to the correlation coefficient, R, as follows: NSEu=2-1/(RxR).
The median NSE and R values for simulated lake water temperatures appear to follow the equality.
Reference
Duc, L. and Sawada, Y.: A signal-processing-based interpretation of the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1827–1839, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1827-2023, 2023.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2447-CC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2447', Zeli Tan, 02 Sep 2024
reply
Feldbauer et al. present a timely and very interesting study related to the uncertainty of physical lake models. Given the critical role of the studied models in climate impact analysis, such as ISIMIP, this research provides important implications for a better assessment of global change in lakes and reservoirs. The manuscript is with high quality of presentation and rigorous scientific inquiry. Only some clarifications and extended discussions are needed before it can be accepted for publication.
One limitation of the current approach, which simultaneously assesses three types of uncertainties in lake models (i.e., input uncertainty, parameter uncertainty, and structural uncertainty), should be further discussed. Due to the interactions among these uncertainties, it is challenging for this multi-objective approach to fully resolve specific uncertainties. As admitted in the manuscript, the uncertainty of the three input-related scaling factors may hide the uncertainty of model-specific parameters and process descriptions. Consequently, the method obscures the investigation of an optimal model for specific lake types and an optimal algorithm for specific lake processes. Notably, for global lake modeling, we hope that as climate data become more accurate with time, the uncertainty of global lake simulations will be reduced. We also hope that lake models can achieve consistent global simulations without lake-specific calibrations. Despite the great values of the current paper, it falls short in addressing these issues. Conversely, I would encourage the authors to conduct a future study which uses observed atmospheric forcings to exclude the uncertainty in input data and ensure the good model performance achieved for right reasons. There are some existing studies following the recommended approach, such as Guseva et al. (2020) and Guo et al. (2021). But their values are limited due to either focusing on only one lake or testing only one lake model.
Guo, M., Zhuang, Q., Yao, H., Golub, M., Leung, L. R., & Tan, Z. (2021). Intercomparison of thermal regime algorithms in 1-D lake models. Water Resources Research, 57, e2020WR028776. https://doi. org/10.1029/2020WR028776
Guseva, S., Bleninger, T., Jöhnk, K., Polli, B. A., Tan, Z., Thiery, W., ... & Stepanenko, V. (2020). Multimodel simulation of vertical gas transfer in a temperate lake. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 24(2), 697-715.
I suggest the authors to avoid the use of "hydrodynamic lake models" to describe the studied models. To me, hydrodynamic models refer to numerical models that solve the transport of both mass and momentum. The authors can use "physical lake models", "thermodynamic lake models", or just "lake models".
In the methodology, one area that needs clarification is what procedure the authors have adopted to ensure appropriate initial conditions for simulations. It can be particularly important for the modeling of deep lakes.
Minor comments:
L55: also Zhuang et al. (2023). Zhuang, Q., Guo, M., Melack, J. M., Lan, X., Tan, Z., Oh, Y., & Leung, L. R. (2023). Current and future global lake methane emissions: A process-based modeling analysis. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 128, e2022JG007137. https://doi. org/10.1029/2022JG007137
L181: gets absorbed
L202: How does the metric δ differ from the Sobol's total-order index?
L212: What is "SA"?
L226-227: I suggest moving Figure 3 upward to Section 2.2
L232: Figure S5 is introduced prior to that of Figure S4.
Figure 5: It is surprising to see that S1 is larger than δ in many cases. To my experience, the first-order sensitivity should be smaller than the total-order sensitivity.
L306: remove "a"
L407: potentially
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2447-RC1
Data sets
Data analysis and plots Johannes Feldbauer and Jorrit P. Mesman https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.13150422
Set up and run calibration Jorrit P. Mesman and Johannes Feldbauer https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.13165427
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
224 | 69 | 29 | 322 | 22 | 5 | 6 |
- HTML: 224
- PDF: 69
- XML: 29
- Total: 322
- Supplement: 22
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1