• Publicationsclose
• Research dataclose
• Other research productsclose
• 2013-2022close
• CA close
• Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS) close
• SDSN - Greece close

In 2009, the International Soil Moisture Network (ISMN) was initiated as a community effort, funded by the European Space Agency, to serve as a centralised data hosting facility for globally available in situ soil moisture measurements (Dorigo et al., 2011b, a). The ISMN brings together in situ soil moisture measurements collected and freely shared by a multitude of organisations, harmonises them in terms of units and sampling rates, applies advanced quality control, and stores them in a database. Users can freely retrieve the data from this database through an online web portal (https://ismn.earth/en/, last access: 28 October 2021). Meanwhile, the ISMN has evolved into the primary in situ soil moisture reference database worldwide, as evidenced by more than 3000 active users and over 1000 scientific publications referencing the data sets provided by the network. As of July 2021, the ISMN now contains the data of 71 networks and 2842 stations located all over the globe, with a time period spanning from 1952 to the present. The number of networks and stations covered by the ISMN is still growing, and approximately 70 % of the data sets contained in the database continue to be updated on a regular or irregular basis. The main scope of this paper is to inform readers about the evolution of the ISMN over the past decade, including a description of network and data set updates and quality control procedures. A comprehensive review of the existing literature making use of ISMN data is also provided in order to identify current limitations in functionality and data usage and to shape priorities for the next decade of operations of this unique community-based data repository.

Global climate model (GCM) outputs feature systematic biases that render them unsuitable for direct use by impact models, especially for hydrological studies. To deal with this issue, many bias correction techniques have been developed to adjust the modelled variables against observations, focusing mainly on precipitation and temperature. However, most state-of-the-art hydrological models require more forcing variables, in addition to precipitation and temperature, such as radiation, humidity, air pressure, and wind speed. The biases in these additional variables can hinder hydrological simulations, but the effect of the bias of each variable is unexplored. Here we examine the effect of GCM biases on historical runoff simulations for each forcing variable individually, using the JULES land surface model set up at the global scale. Based on the quantified effect, we assess which variables should be included in bias correction procedures. To this end, a partial correction bias assessment experiment is conducted, to test the effect of the biases of six climate variables from a set of three GCMs. The effect of the bias of each climate variable individually is quantified by comparing the changes in simulated runoff that correspond to the bias of each tested variable. A methodology for the classification of the effect of biases in four effect categories (ECs), based on the magnitude and sensitivity of runoff changes, is developed and applied. Our results show that, while globally the largest changes in modelled runoff are caused by precipitation and temperature biases, there are regions where runoff is substantially affected by and/or more sensitive to radiation and humidity. Global maps of bias ECs reveal the regions mostly affected by the bias of each variable. Based on our findings, for global-scale applications, bias correction of radiation and humidity, in addition to that of precipitation and temperature, is advised. Finer spatial-scale information is also provided, to suggest bias correction of variables beyond precipitation and temperature for regional studies.

Various methods are available for assessing uncertainties in climate impact studies. Among such methods, model weighting by expert elicitation is a practical way to provide a weighted ensemble of models for specific real-world impacts. The aim is to decrease the influence of improbable models in the results and easing the decisionmaking process. In this study both climate and hydrological models are analysed, and the result of a research experiment is presented using model weighting with the participation of six climate model experts and six hydrological model experts. For the experiment, seven climate models are a priori selected from a larger EURO-CORDEX (Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment – European Domain) ensemble of climate models, and three different hydrological models are chosen for each of the three European river basins. The model weighting is based on qualitative evaluation by the experts for each of the selected models based on a training material that describes the overall model structure and literature about climate models and the performance of hydrological models for the present period. The expert elicitation process follows a three-stage approach, with two individual rounds of elicitation of probabilities and a final group consensus, where the experts are separated into two different community groups: a climate and a hydrological modeller group. The dialogue reveals that under the conditions of the study, most climate modellers prefer the equal weighting of ensemble members, whereas hydrological-impact modellers in general are more open for assigning weights to different models in a multi-model ensemble, based on model performance and model structure. Climate experts are more open to exclude models, if obviously flawed, than to put weights on selected models in a relatively small ensemble. The study shows that expert elicitation can be an efficient way to assign weights to different hydrological models and thereby reduce the uncertainty in climate impact. However, for the climate model ensemble, comprising seven models, the elicitation in the format of this study could only re-establish a uniform weight between climate models. European Commission European Commission Joint Research Centre 690462

Various methods are available for assessing uncertainties in climate impact studies. Among such methods, model weighting by expert elicitation is a practical way to provide a weighted ensemble of models for specific real-world impacts. The aim is to decrease the influence of improbable models in the results and easing the decision-making process. In this study both climate and hydrological models are analysed, and the result of a research experiment is presented using model weighting with the participation of six climate model experts and six hydrological model experts. For the experiment, seven climate models are a priori selected from a larger EURO-CORDEX (Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment – European Domain) ensemble of climate models, and three different hydrological models are chosen for each of the three European river basins. The model weighting is based on qualitative evaluation by the experts for each of the selected models based on a training material that describes the overall model structure and literature about climate models and the performance of hydrological models for the present period. The expert elicitation process follows a three-stage approach, with two individual rounds of elicitation of probabilities and a final group consensus, where the experts are separated into two different community groups: a climate and a hydrological modeller group. The dialogue reveals that under the conditions of the study, most climate modellers prefer the equal weighting of ensemble members, whereas hydrological-impact modellers in general are more open for assigning weights to different models in a multi-model ensemble, based on model performance and model structure. Climate experts are more open to exclude models, if obviously flawed, than to put weights on selected models in a relatively small ensemble. The study shows that expert elicitation can be an efficient way to assign weights to different hydrological models and thereby reduce the uncertainty in climate impact. However, for the climate model ensemble, comprising seven models, the elicitation in the format of this study could only re-establish a uniform weight between climate models.

Abstract. Global climate model (GCM) outputs feature systematic biases that render them unsuitable for direct use by impact models, especially for hydrological studies. To deal with this issue, many bias correction techniques have been developed to adjust the modelled variables against observations, focusing mainly on precipitation and temperature. However, most state-of-the-art hydrological models require more forcing variables, in addition to precipitation and temperature, such as radiation, humidity, air pressure, and wind speed. The biases in these additional variables can hinder hydrological simulations, but the effect of the bias of each variable is unexplored. Here we examine the effect of GCM biases on historical runoff simulations for each forcing variable individually, using the JULES land surface model set up at the global scale. Based on the quantified effect, we assess which variables should be included in bias correction procedures. To this end, a partial correction bias assessment experiment is conducted, to test the effect of the biases of six climate variables from a set of three GCMs. The effect of the bias of each climate variable individually is quantified by comparing the changes in simulated runoff that correspond to the bias of each tested variable. A methodology for the classification of the effect of biases in four effect categories (ECs), based on the magnitude and sensitivity of runoff changes, is developed and applied. Our results show that, while globally the largest changes in modelled runoff are caused by precipitation and temperature biases, there are regions where runoff is substantially affected by and/or more sensitive to radiation and humidity. Global maps of bias ECs reveal the regions mostly affected by the bias of each variable. Based on our findings, for global-scale applications, bias correction of radiation and humidity, in addition to that of precipitation and temperature, is advised. Finer spatial-scale information is also provided, to suggest bias correction of variables beyond precipitation and temperature for regional studies.