How much cryosphere model complexity is just right? Exploration using the conceptual cryosphere hydrology framework

Making meaningful projections of the impacts that possible future climates would have on water resources in mountain regions requires understanding how cryosphere hydrology model performance changes under altered climate conditions and when the model is applied to ungaged catchments. Further, if we...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Cryosphere
Main Authors: T. M. Mosier, D. F. Hill, K. V. Sharp
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Copernicus Publications 2016
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-2147-2016
https://www.the-cryosphere.net/10/2147/2016/tc-10-2147-2016.pdf
https://doaj.org/article/1eda367f266e4afb9449ab5d8a98feb4
_version_ 1821522241501790208
author T. M. Mosier
D. F. Hill
K. V. Sharp
author_facet T. M. Mosier
D. F. Hill
K. V. Sharp
author_sort T. M. Mosier
collection Unknown
container_issue 5
container_start_page 2147
container_title The Cryosphere
container_volume 10
description Making meaningful projections of the impacts that possible future climates would have on water resources in mountain regions requires understanding how cryosphere hydrology model performance changes under altered climate conditions and when the model is applied to ungaged catchments. Further, if we are to develop better models, we must understand which specific process representations limit model performance. This article presents a modeling tool, named the Conceptual Cryosphere Hydrology Framework (CCHF), that enables implementing and evaluating a wide range of cryosphere modeling hypotheses. The CCHF represents cryosphere hydrology systems using a set of coupled process modules that allows easily interchanging individual module representations and includes analysis tools to evaluate model outputs. CCHF version 1 (Mosier, 2016) implements model formulations that require only precipitation and temperature as climate inputs – for example variations on simple degree-index (SDI) or enhanced temperature index (ETI) formulations – because these model structures are often applied in data-sparse mountain regions, and perform relatively well over short periods, but their calibration is known to change based on climate and geography. Using CCHF, we implement seven existing and novel models, including one existing SDI model, two existing ETI models, and four novel models that utilize a combination of existing and novel module representations. The novel module representations include a heat transfer formulation with net longwave radiation and a snowpack internal energy formulation that uses an approximation of the cold content. We assess the models for the Gulkana and Wolverine glaciated watersheds in Alaska, which have markedly different climates and contain long-term US Geological Survey benchmark glaciers. Overall we find that the best performing models are those that are more physically consistent and representative, but no single model performs best for all of our model evaluation criteria.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
genre glaciers
The Cryosphere
Alaska
genre_facet glaciers
The Cryosphere
Alaska
id fttriple:oai:gotriple.eu:oai:doaj.org/article:1eda367f266e4afb9449ab5d8a98feb4
institution Open Polar
language English
op_collection_id fttriple
op_container_end_page 2171
op_doi https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-2147-2016
op_relation doi:10.5194/tc-10-2147-2016
1994-0416
1994-0424
https://www.the-cryosphere.net/10/2147/2016/tc-10-2147-2016.pdf
https://doaj.org/article/1eda367f266e4afb9449ab5d8a98feb4
op_rights undefined
op_source The Cryosphere, Vol 10, Pp 2147-2171 (2016)
publishDate 2016
publisher Copernicus Publications
record_format openpolar
spelling fttriple:oai:gotriple.eu:oai:doaj.org/article:1eda367f266e4afb9449ab5d8a98feb4 2025-01-16T22:03:55+00:00 How much cryosphere model complexity is just right? Exploration using the conceptual cryosphere hydrology framework T. M. Mosier D. F. Hill K. V. Sharp 2016-09-01 https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-2147-2016 https://www.the-cryosphere.net/10/2147/2016/tc-10-2147-2016.pdf https://doaj.org/article/1eda367f266e4afb9449ab5d8a98feb4 en eng Copernicus Publications doi:10.5194/tc-10-2147-2016 1994-0416 1994-0424 https://www.the-cryosphere.net/10/2147/2016/tc-10-2147-2016.pdf https://doaj.org/article/1eda367f266e4afb9449ab5d8a98feb4 undefined The Cryosphere, Vol 10, Pp 2147-2171 (2016) geo envir Journal Article https://vocabularies.coar-repositories.org/resource_types/c_6501/ 2016 fttriple https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-2147-2016 2023-01-22T18:11:29Z Making meaningful projections of the impacts that possible future climates would have on water resources in mountain regions requires understanding how cryosphere hydrology model performance changes under altered climate conditions and when the model is applied to ungaged catchments. Further, if we are to develop better models, we must understand which specific process representations limit model performance. This article presents a modeling tool, named the Conceptual Cryosphere Hydrology Framework (CCHF), that enables implementing and evaluating a wide range of cryosphere modeling hypotheses. The CCHF represents cryosphere hydrology systems using a set of coupled process modules that allows easily interchanging individual module representations and includes analysis tools to evaluate model outputs. CCHF version 1 (Mosier, 2016) implements model formulations that require only precipitation and temperature as climate inputs – for example variations on simple degree-index (SDI) or enhanced temperature index (ETI) formulations – because these model structures are often applied in data-sparse mountain regions, and perform relatively well over short periods, but their calibration is known to change based on climate and geography. Using CCHF, we implement seven existing and novel models, including one existing SDI model, two existing ETI models, and four novel models that utilize a combination of existing and novel module representations. The novel module representations include a heat transfer formulation with net longwave radiation and a snowpack internal energy formulation that uses an approximation of the cold content. We assess the models for the Gulkana and Wolverine glaciated watersheds in Alaska, which have markedly different climates and contain long-term US Geological Survey benchmark glaciers. Overall we find that the best performing models are those that are more physically consistent and representative, but no single model performs best for all of our model evaluation criteria. Article in Journal/Newspaper glaciers The Cryosphere Alaska Unknown The Cryosphere 10 5 2147 2171
spellingShingle geo
envir
T. M. Mosier
D. F. Hill
K. V. Sharp
How much cryosphere model complexity is just right? Exploration using the conceptual cryosphere hydrology framework
title How much cryosphere model complexity is just right? Exploration using the conceptual cryosphere hydrology framework
title_full How much cryosphere model complexity is just right? Exploration using the conceptual cryosphere hydrology framework
title_fullStr How much cryosphere model complexity is just right? Exploration using the conceptual cryosphere hydrology framework
title_full_unstemmed How much cryosphere model complexity is just right? Exploration using the conceptual cryosphere hydrology framework
title_short How much cryosphere model complexity is just right? Exploration using the conceptual cryosphere hydrology framework
title_sort how much cryosphere model complexity is just right? exploration using the conceptual cryosphere hydrology framework
topic geo
envir
topic_facet geo
envir
url https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-2147-2016
https://www.the-cryosphere.net/10/2147/2016/tc-10-2147-2016.pdf
https://doaj.org/article/1eda367f266e4afb9449ab5d8a98feb4