Reply to comment by Keith J. Beven and Hannah L. Cloke on “Hyperresolution global land surface modeling: Meeting a grand challenge for monitoring Earth's terrestrial water”

Abstract

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 48, W01802, doi:10.1029/2011WR011202, 2012 Reply to comment by Keith J. Beven and Hannah L. Cloke on ‘‘Hyperresolution global land surface modeling: Meeting a grand challenge for monitoring Earth’s terrestrial water’’ Eric F. Wood, 1 Joshua K. Roundy, 1 Tara J. Troy, 1 Rens van Beek, 2 Marc Bierkens, 2 Eleanor Blyth, 3 Ad de Roo, 4 Petra Doll, 5 Mike Ek, 6 James Famiglietti, 7 David Gochis, 8 Nick van de Giesen, 9 Paul Houser, 10 Peter Jaffe, 1 Stefan Kollet, 11 Bernhard Lehner, 12 Dennis P. Lettenmaier, 13 Christa D. Peters-Lidard, 14 Murugesu Sivapalan, 15 Justin Sheffield, 1 Andrew J. Wade, 16 and Paul Whitehead 17 Received 25 July 2011; revised 9 November 2011; accepted 3 December 2011; published 21 January 2012. Citation: Wood, E. F., et al. (2012), Reply to comment by Keith J. Beven and Hannah L. Cloke on ‘‘Hyperresolution global land surface modeling: Meeting a grand challenge for monitoring Earth’s terrestrial water’’ Water Resour. Res., 48, W01802, doi:10.1029/ 2011WR011202. Introduction [ 1 ] The authors of Wood et al. [2011, hereafter W2011] would like to thank Beven and Cloke [2012, hereafter BC2012] for furthering the discussion about the pathway to- ward a global-scale hyper-resolution water-energy-biogeo- chemistry land surface modeling capability: its need, feasibility and development. Their comment brings focus to the discussion and shows that the proposed challenge to our community is one element in a long history of hydrology Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton Uni- versity, Princeton, New Jersey, USA. Department of Physical Geography, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, UK. Institute for Environment and Sustainability, European Commission Joint Research Center, Ispra, Italy. Institute of Physical Geography, J. W. Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Environmental Modeling Center, National Centers for Environmental Protection, Suitland, Maryland, USA. UC Center for Hydrologic Modeling, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, California, USA. Research Applications Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA. Department of Water Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands. Department of Geography and GeoInformation Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA. Meteorological Institute, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. Department of Geography, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. Hydrological Sciences Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Cen- ter, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Department of Geography, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA. School of Human and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Reading, UK. School of Geography and the Environment, Oxford University, Oxford, UK. Copyright 2012 by the American Geophysical Union 0043-1397/12/2011WR011202 model developments with the goal to improving hydrologic predictions and understanding. [ 2 ] What is laid out in W2011 is, first and foremost, a grand challenge because (1) there is a grand need, (2) there are great new opportunities, and (3) if the hydrologic com- munity does not do it someone else will do it, albeit poorly. The reader is directed to W2011 for a discussion of the growing need for continental-scale land surface models that consider improved, scale-appropriate parameteriza- tions of the water, energy and biogeochemical cycles at resolutions on the order of 10 2 to 10 3 m grid resolutions. Some examples are presented, which were not meant be to comprehensive in their scope of detail, that include surface-subsurface interactions, land-atmospheric interac- tions and coupling, water quality that includes nonpoint pollution, and human impacts that include water manage- ment, land cover change and the effects of climate change. [ 3 ] The commentary by BC2012 focuses on just one chal- lenge or building block described in W2011: the issue of parameterization of subgrid heterogeneity and the resulting uncertainty—what they refer to as ‘‘epistemic uncertainty.’’ BC2012 interprets the Grand Challenge in W2011 as ‘‘simply moving to finer resolutions.’’ This is not what W2011 says or proposes. There are many new building blocks available for the research into hyper-resolution modeling: (1) new data sources and measurement techniques for precipitation, topog- raphy, vegetation cover, soils, but also soil moisture, evapo- transpiration, water storages (rivers, lakes, groundwater storages, soil moisture); (2) new physics—new sets of gov- erning equations, including new approaches to developing closure relations; (3) new approaches to handling known and unknown uncertainties in model structure, variables and numerics, including characterizing subgrid heterogeneity (including new ways to capture their effects) based on new insights into ecohydrology and hydropedology and approaches that utilize the coevolution of climate, soils, vege- tation and topography; (4) new approaches that can better include nonlinear feedbacks between various subsystems, and local, regional and global cycles and teleconnections; (5) new regionalization efforts aimed at learning from compara- tive analysis across climatic, geologic and human-impact W01802 1 of 3