A seasonal to decadal calibration of 1990-2100 eastern Canadian freshwater discharge simulations by observations, data models, and neural networks

Jo\"el Chass\'e; Minghong Zhang; Richard E. Danielson; Will Perrie

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 59 references

A seasonal to decadal calibration of 1990-2100 eastern Canadian freshwater discharge simulations by observations, data models, and neural networks

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a seasonal three-stage calibration of WRF-Hydro, ending in neural-network post-processing, yields 1990–2100 eastern Canadian discharge simulations whose annual variations and interannual trends are precise enough…

desk verdict A transparent WRF-Hydro calibration study with a genuinely held-out neural net test, but the 2100 trend claims rest on an explicit stationarity assumption that the paper should defend more directly. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05261 v1 pith:53TFKAOT submitted 2025-06-05 stat.AP

Richard E. Danielson , Minghong Zhang , Joël Chassé , Will Perrie This is my paper

classification stat.AP

keywords watershedhydrologyprocessmodelcalibrationneuralnetworkpost-processingclimatetrendsstreamfloweasternCanadaCMIPdownscalingdata

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a fully observation-anchored calibration chain can make a coarse-resolution hydrologic model trustworthy for century-scale projections of eastern Canadian river discharge. The chain runs from topography, forcing the model's watersheds to match observed boundaries, through atmospheric forcing, adjusting downscaled climate-model fields to a weather reanalysis, and parameters, tuning nine WRF-Hydro values on 2019 warm-season streamflow, then finishes with two neural networks that smooth peaky flows and recalibrate each climate-forced simulation to gauge data. The payoff claimed is practical: the calibrated 1990–2100 ensemble shows more than half of 51 ocean-outlet stations meeting a standard satisfactory-skill threshold, converged daily-discharge statistics across four climate forcings, and the already-expected trends of rising cold-season low flows and earlier spring peak runoff. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a template for turning process models and imperfect climate forcing into boundary conditions for ocean and water-resource studies without waiting for denser observations or higher resolution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a three-stage calibration chain expressed through a data model of the form C = t + epsilon, where the reference and simulation are both taken as imperfect representations of the same underlying truth. Stage one conforms the digital elevation model's catchments to observed watershed boundaries. Stage two applies a smooth seasonal sinusoidal adjustment to each downscaled CMIP forcing so its 1990–2004 annual cycle matches the ERA5 reanalysis. Stage three is hydrologic: PEST, an automatic parameter estimation tool, tunes nine spatially constant WRF-Hydro parameters against 2019 warm-season streamflow at 25 reference stations, and then two neural networks post-process the output. NN232, with daily and 12-day mean input-output nodes, buffers strong peaks in seasonal and daily flows; NN343, with daily, monthly, and annual nodes, is trained separately for each CMIP forcing, with daily values rank-matched to observations so the output sequence is unaltered. NN343 is what carries the claim of precise annual variations and interannual trends.

What would settle it

Retrain the entire calibration chain using streamflow data only through 2018 and compare NN343 output to the held-out 2019–2022 records; if calibrated errors grow or the direction of the cold-season trend changes materially in the holdout window, the assumption that the calibration can be extended to 2100 is contradicted. A complementary check would compare calibrated total eastern Canadian discharge to independent satellite-derived freshwater estimates at the same coastline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that hydrologic calibration need not stop at model parameters: applying a common data model equally to the reference streamflow and to the simulation, and then correcting the output with neural networks, yields calibrated WRF-Hydro discharge for 1990–2100 that is relatively precise in annual variations and interannual trends under all four CMIP forcings. The decisive evidence is the gain from the second network, NN343, which is trained at 183 gauged catchments and then applied to 51 ocean outlets whose upstream gauge covers at least 40 percent of the outlet catchment; with NN343 added, more than half of those outlets meet the study's satisfactory threshold, whereas the parameter-only and peak-buffering calibrations fell short. The paper also claims that NN343 training preserves the temporal sequence of simulated discharge: daily flows are matched by rank to observations during training, while monthly and annual means keep their order, so the resulting decadal trends are not artifacts of reordering.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that calibrations fitted to 1990–2022 streamflow, and for the parameter step only to the 2019 warm season, remain valid for the 2023–2100 climate, including winter processes the parameter fit never explicitly tuned.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the paper is right, ocean modelers can treat the calibrated discharge at 477 eastern Canadian outlets as a boundary condition whose cold-season low-flow increases and earlier spring peak are consistent across four CMIP forcings through 2100.
The NN343 training scheme gives a route for directly calibrating climate-model-forced hydrology to observations without reshuffling the temporal sequence, which conventional bias-correction methods typically do.
The result suggests that a parameter calibration fitted to one warm season can be partially rescued by output-stage neural networks, making the approach attractive where only short gauge records exist.
The satisfactory-station rate at ocean outlets implies the calibrated ensemble is already at the skill level used for operational water-resource assessments, at least where upstream gauges cover the outlet catchment.
The three-stage calibration chain provides a repeatable template for other regions: condition the river network, seasonally adjust the forcing, tune a small parameter set, then post-process discharge with networks trained on gauge data.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: because NN343 is trained only at gauged stations and then applied to ungauged outlets, its transfer error to the coast is unmeasured; a natural extension is to train on a subset of gauges and validate on held-out gauges to estimate that transfer error.
Editorial inference: the PEST parameters were fit to the warm season only, so the projected winter low-flow increase is largely carried by default cold-season processes plus NN343; re-running PEST with a full-year objective could reveal how much of the 2100 winter trend is genuinely calibrated.
Editorial inference: the paper's reliance on the assumption that historical calibrations hold through 2100 suggests a moving-window retraining experiment, fitting NN343 to 1990–2010 and testing on 2011–2022, to bound how much of the projected trend is extrapolation rather than learned behavior.
Editorial inference: the data-model framing could be pushed further by assigning explicit uncertainty to the reference streamflow itself, which would turn the calibration chain into a full uncertainty propagation rather than a single point estimate.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the quick read: this paper is worth your time. It walks through a four-step calibration of WRF-Hydro for eastern Canada – topography, atmospheric forcing, PEST parameter estimation, and two neural network post-processors – and it reports the failures as plainly as the successes. The novel piece is NN343, a small network with daily/monthly/annual nodes that is trained on CMIP-forced simulations directly against HyDAT observations, using rank-matched daily flows during training. The even/odd year split gives a real out-of-sample test, and the gains are substantial: satisfactory stations roughly double after NN343.

The paper also does something increasingly rare: it admits when a step doesn't work well. PEST improves NSE at only 13 of 25 stations, and several parameters land at the edge of their prior ranges. NN232 alone leaves most stations unsatisfactory. The authors don't hide this, and they don't oversell the historical skill.

The soft spots are in the future projections. The 2100 results have no uncertainty intervals, and the neural network and atmospheric adjustments are fitted to 1990-2022 and then applied through 2100. The paper opens with 'the conventional assumption that calibrations based on historical data can be applied well into the future' and repeats it in the Discussion. That's honest, but the Conclusions still claim 'relatively precise annual variations and interannual trends' through 2100. The stress-test concern lands here: the paper notes that calibrated trends in Figure 9 'appear to be shifted by a constant value,' but that's a visual judgment, not a quantitative check. If the NN343 transform is a constant shift in annual means, then trend slopes are preserved; if it isn't, the future trend slopes could be altered. A simple comparison of calibrated versus uncalibrated 1990-2100 trend slopes would settle it, and its absence is the paper's main weakness.

Other quibbles: PEST and NN232 are evaluated in-sample (Table 4), and the selection of 25 RHBN stations and 51 outlets is post hoc. Both are minor given the NN343 held-out test and the transparency of the selection criteria.

Bottom line: this is a solid, useful template for regional hydrology calibration, with real reproducibility (code on GitLab, all data public). It deserves peer review, not desk rejection. I'd ask the authors to add the trend-preservation check and to soften the 2100 conclusion to match the acknowledged stationarity assumption. I'd bring it to reading group and would likely cite it for the NN343 approach.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. Danielson et al. calibrate the NCAR WRF-Hydro model for eastern Canadian river discharge using four sequential steps: imposing HydroSHEDS watershed boundaries on a 2-km routing grid; applying a sinusoidal seasonal adjustment to downscaled CMIP atmospheric forcing (Section 3.b); tuning nine spatially constant hydrological parameters with PEST against 25 RHBN stations in the 2019 warm season (Section 3.c); and post-processing simulated streamflow with two neural networks, NN232 (all stations, peak smoothing) and NN343 (per-station, per-CMIP seasonal calibration) trained on 1990-2022 HyDAT observations. The calibrated system is then applied to four CMIP downscalings (CCSM-4, two HadGEM2, MPI-ESM1.2-LR) to produce summed freshwater discharge through 477 ocean outlets for 1990-2100. The paper reports improved historical skill (NN343 roughly doubling the number of Moriasi-satisfactory stations; Tables 5-6) and projects increasing cold-season low flows and an earlier spring freshet, consistent with earlier studies.

Significance. If the results hold, the main contribution is a practical, stepwise calibration chain in which CMIP-forced WRF-Hydro streamflow is adjusted directly against observed discharge, with NN343's rank-matched training preserving the output temporal sequence. The even/odd-year split (Section 4.d) is a genuine held-out test for NN343 and gives consistent results, and the authors explicitly acknowledge the stationarity assumption (Sections 3 and 5). These strengths are real. The central future-oriented claim ('relatively precise annual variations and interannual trends' through 2100, Section 6) is nevertheless extrapolative and currently lacks direct quantitative support, because NN343 is validated only on 1990-2022 and Figure 9 shows no uncertainty bands. The paper would be strengthened by a head-to-head comparison of calibrated and uncalibrated 1990-2100 trends and by uncertainty intervals on the projections.

major comments (3)

[Section 6, Figure 9] The statement in Section 6 that NN343-calibrated simulations yield 'relatively precise annual variations and interannual trends' for 1990-2100 goes beyond what is demonstrated. NN343 is trained and tested only on 1990-2022 (Tables 5-6); its even/odd split shows historical skill but says nothing about whether the learned nonlinear mapping preserves the magnitude or sign of future trends under changed forcing. The Discussion (Section 5) asserts that calibrated trends appear 'shifted by a constant value' and that an analysis of uncalibrated trends would be equivalent, but this is not quantified, and the claim is not guaranteed for a nonlinear ELU network with a four-node hidden layer. No comparison of calibrated versus uncalibrated linear trend slopes or decadal means over 1990-2100 is provided, and Figure 9 lacks uncertainty intervals. Because the paper's headline finding concerns future trends, this extrapolation needs direct support, for example by reporting the change in 1990-2100 trend slopes (or a similar scalar) before and after each calibration step.
[Section 4.3, Table 4] The evaluation of the PEST and NN232 steps is fully in-sample. PEST is calibrated against the 25 RHBN stations for May-October 2019 and the same data are used to compute Table 4; the table caption explicitly notes that NN232 'training and testing employ the same reference.' Consequently, the abstract's statement that improvements 'were found in about half the individual catchments' and the 13/25 station count in Section 4.3 are in-sample diagnostics and do not establish generalization. This matters because NN343 is then trained on NN232 output; although the NN343 even/odd split provides an independent check at the end of the chain, the intermediate performance claims should be labelled as calibration fits or supported by a split-sample test of PEST/NN232.
[Section 4.d, Tables 5-6] The generalization from 51 calibrated ocean outlets to the full 477-outlet domain is not quantified. The 51 outlets are selected post hoc by requiring a nearby HyDAT station whose upstream catchment covers at least 40% of the outlet catchment (Section 4.d), and Table 6 reports that just over half of these are satisfactory. Since the 1990-2100 total discharge in Figure 9 sums over all 477 outlets, the claim that calibrated simulations give 'relatively precise annual variations and interannual trends for all CMIP forcings' (Section 6) rests on an extrapolation from a selected subset. At minimum, the authors should state how the 51 outlets represent the 477, report aggregate statistics for the uncalibrated remainder, or temper the claim to apply only to the calibrated outlets.

minor comments (6)

[Section 5, Appendix, Figure 5] There are several typographical errors: 'similarites' in Section 5, 'thoughout' in the Appendix, 'dischange' in the Figure 5 caption, and 'Intergovernmenta Panel' in the IPCC 2013 reference. These should be corrected.
[Appendix, Eq. (3)] In the data model C = t + ϵc and U = t + ϵu, the quantity t is not explicitly defined in the main text; please define it as a common 'truth' or 'target' and clarify how it relates to the equivalence assumption discussed in the Appendix.
[Table 3] The caption of Table 3 lists ranges of adjustments but does not explain why some variables (e.g., shortwave and longwave radiation) are omitted; a sentence in the text or caption would help readers understand the selection criterion.
[Tables 4-6] The notation in the columns labelled 'Satisfac. Stations (%)' is difficult to parse at first reading; for example, '14/41/84' is presumably the count of satisfactory stations for PEST/NN232/NN343, but the caption should state this explicitly and explain how the 'Avg.' columns relate to the three calibrations.
[Acknowledgements] The GitLab URL contains a space ('https://gitlab.com/dfo modcom/diag.hydrology'), which will not resolve; replace the space with the correct path or use a URL shortener.
[Figure 9] Consider adding a vertical line or shading to separate the historical period (1990-2022) from the projection period (2023-2100) in Figure 9, and note in the caption that NN343 is not independently validated after 2022.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: calibration targets external benchmarks (HyDAT, ERA5) and NN343 is tested on held-out years; self-citations are present but not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's calibration chain targets external references (HyDAT streamflow observations and ERA5 reanalysis) rather than quantities derived from the model itself. PEST parameters are fit to 25 RHBN stations and NN232/NN343 are trained on HyDAT data, but the paper honestly labels these as calibration (Table 4 notes that training and testing employ the same reference for NN232) and provides an independent even/odd-year held-out test for NN343 (Section 4.4, Tables 5 and 6). The future 1990-2100 trend claim is not a fitted quantity: the Discussion states that 1990-2100 trends 'appear to be shifted after each calibration step by a constant value,' so the interannual trends are inherited from the uncalibrated WRF-Hydro/CMIP simulations, not manufactured by the neural networks. The data model (Eq. 3) is an explicit definitional framework, not a derivation, and the paper acknowledges the conventional stationarity assumption (Maraun 2016). Self-citations (Stiles et al. 2014 for neural-network composition; Zhang et al. 2019a for WRF downscaling) are methodological or data-provenance citations and are not used as the load-bearing evidence for the central results. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction, so no specific circular reduction can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of calibration steps, each of which assumes a reference dataset is trustworthy and that historical relationships generalize. The free parameters are the PEST set, NN weights, and atmospheric adjustment factors.

free parameters (13)

BEXP multiplier = 0.47
Fitted by PEST against 3699 HyDAT observations at 25 RHBN stations, May-Oct 2019.
DKSAT multiplier = 0.21
Fitted by PEST, same calibration window.
MFSNO = 0.50
Fitted by PEST, same calibration window.
MP multiplier = 1.40
Fitted by PEST, same calibration window.
OVROUGHRTF multiplier = 1.50
Fitted by PEST, same calibration window.
REFKDT = 0.68
Fitted by PEST, same calibration window.
RETDEPRTF multiplier = 0.23
Fitted by PEST, same calibration window.
SLOPE = 0.27
Fitted by PEST, same calibration window.
SMCMAX multiplier = 1.02
Fitted by PEST, same calibration window.
NN232 weights and biases
23 parameters trained on 3699 RHBN observations, 2019; used to smooth streamflow peaks.
NN343 weights and biases
39 parameters per network, trained on 1.2M HyDAT observations 1990-2022 at 183 stations, and per-CMIP at 51 outlets.
Atmospheric adjustment factors = Ranges in Table 3
Daily linear adjustments fitted to ERA5 seasonal cycle 1990-2004, applied to 1990-2100.
Sinusoid parameters for annual cycle
Amplitude, phase, and offset fitted to daily-mean ERA5 1990-2004 for the atmospheric calibration.

assumptions (8)

domain assumption Calibrations based on historical data can be applied well into the future.
Stated in Section 3, first sentence; load-bearing for all 1990-2100 projections.
domain assumption Equivalence assumption: C and U are directly comparable and squared differences are minimized (Eq. 3).
Used in PEST objective (Eq. 1) and NN loss (Eq. 2); ignores stage-discharge uncertainty.
domain assumption HydroSHEDS watershed boundaries are treated as fixed and natural.
Section 3.a; the river network is forced to match HydroSHEDS, whose errors propagate.
domain assumption ERA5 is treated as truth for atmospheric calibration.
Section 3.b; the paper acknowledges ERA5 errors but uses its annual cycle as reference.
domain assumption Linear adjustment preserves trends and synoptic timing.
Section 3.b, citing Maraun 2016; used to argue calibrated trends are well behaved.
domain assumption PEST parameter ranges from Rafieei Nasab et al. (2020) are appropriate for eastern Canada.
Section 3.c; ranges are from a conterminous US application, and several parameters hit range limits.
domain assumption Neural networks trained at inland stations can be applied to ocean outlets.
Section 3.d; transfer based on catchment coverage >=40%, no direct validation at outlets.
domain assumption HyDAT stage-discharge relationships are reliable.
Section 2.3; streamflow is derived from stage, with ice-affected conditions, yet used as ground truth.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A seasonal to decadal calibration of 1990-2100 eastern Canadian freshwater discharge simulations by observations, data models, and neural networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/53TFKAOT

@misc{pith2026250605261,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A seasonal to decadal calibration of 1990-2100 eastern Canadian freshwater discharge simulations by observations, data models, and neural networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/53TFKAOT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05261}
}

abstract

A configuration of the NCAR WRF-Hydro model was sought using well established data models to guide the initial hydrologic model setup, as well as a seasonal streamflow post-processing by neural networks. Discharge was simulated using an eastern Canadian river network at two-km resolution. The river network was taken from a digital elevation model that was made to conform to observed catchment boundaries. Perturbations of a subset of model parameters were examined with reference to streamflow from 25 gauged catchments during the 2019 warm season. A data model defines the similarity of modelled streamflow to observations, and improvements were found in about half the individual catchments. With reference to 183 gauged catchments (1990-2022), further improvements were obtained at monthly and annual scales by neural network post-processing that targets all catchments at once as well as individual catchments. This seasonal calibration was applied to uncoupled WRF-Hydro simulations for the 1990-2100 warming period. Historic and future forcing were provided, respectively, by a European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting reanalysis (ERA5), and by a WRF atmospheric model downscaling of a set of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) models, where the latter were also seasonally calibrated. Eastern Canadian freshwater discharge peaks at about 10$^5$ m$^3$ s$^{-1}$, and as previous studies have shown, there is a trend toward increasing low flows during the cold season and an earlier peak discharge in spring. By design, neural networks yield more precise estimates by compensating for different hydrologic process representations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05261 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Catchment area upstream of hydrologic station 03JB004 (Rivi`ere Aux Feuilles, upstream of Dufreboy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Linear adjustment of HadGEM2 to ERA5 (left panels) based on averages over land in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Catchments (shaded) upstream of 25 Reference Hydrometric Basin Network stations (black dots), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Daily discharge (m3 s −1 ) during 2019 at Attawapiskat River below Muketei River (04FC001), as given by HyDAT (black) and WRF-Hydro, where the latter employs default (orange) and PEST (purple) parameters, and after PEST dischange is post-processed using a neural networ…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Regulated discharge (m3 s −1 ) of the St. Lawrence River at Lasalle (02OA016, left panels) and the Churchill River above Upper Muskrat Falls (03OE001, right panels) at a,d) daily and b,e) monthly intervals during 1990-1995, and c,f) as annual averages for each day of t…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Catchments (overlapping light blue shading) upstream of 183 HyDAT stations (black dots), where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: As in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Simulated 1990-2100 discharge (103 m3 s −1 ) for the 477 eastern Canadian rivers between the Severn and St. Croix ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

[1]

Altenau, E. H., T. M. Pavelsky, M. T. Durand, X. Yang, R. P. d. M. Frasson, and L. Bendezu, 2021: The Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) Mission River Database (SWORD): A global river network for satellite data products . Water Resour. Res.\/ , 57 , 1--15, doi:10.1029/2021WR030054

work page doi:10.1029/2021wr030054 2021
[2]

Donnelly, and D

Berg, P., C. Donnelly, and D. Gustafsson, 2018: Near-real-time adjusted reanalysis forcing data for hydrology . Hydrol. Earth System Sci.\/ , 22 , 989--1000, doi:10.5194/hess--22--989--2018

work page doi:10.5194/hess--22--989--2018 2018
[3]

Beven, K., 2019: Towards a methodology for testing models as hypotheses in the inexact sciences . Proc. Roy. Soc. A\/ , 475 , 1--19, doi:10.1098/rspa.2018.0862

work page arXiv 2019
[4]

Beven, K., 2021: An epistemically uncertain walk through the rather fuzzy subject of observation and model uncertainties . Hydrol. Processes\/ , 35 , 1--9, doi:10.1002/hyp.14012

work page doi:10.1002/hyp.14012 2021
[5]

Bonsal, B. R., D. L. Peters, F. Seglenieks, A. Rivera, and A. Berg, 2019: Changes in freshwater availability across Canada, Chapter 6 of Canada's Changing Climate Report , E. Bush and D. S. Lemmen, Eds., Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, p. 261--342, (accessed April 2024 at https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019)

work page 2019
[6]

Bulgin, C. E., C. M. Thomas, J. A. Waller, and E. R. Woolliams, 2022: Representation uncertainty in the Earth sciences . Earth Space Sci.\/ , 9 , 1--7, doi:10.1029/2021EA002129

work page doi:10.1029/2021ea002129 2022
[7]

Bush, E., and D. S. Lemmen, 2019: Canada's Changing Climate Report, Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 444 pp., (accessed April 2024 at https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019)

work page 2019
[8]

J., 2016: Multivariate bias correction of climate model output: Matching marginal distributions and intervariable dependence structure

Cannon, A. J., 2016: Multivariate bias correction of climate model output: Matching marginal distributions and intervariable dependence structure . J. Climate\/ , 29 , 7045--7064, doi:10.1175/JCLI--D--15--0679.1

work page doi:10.1175/jcli--d--15--0679.1 2016

Show all 59 references

[9]

J., 2018: Multivariate quantile mapping bias correction: An N-dimensional probability density function transform for climate model simulations of multiple variables

Cannon, A. J., 2018: Multivariate quantile mapping bias correction: An N-dimensional probability density function transform for climate model simulations of multiple variables . Climate Dyn.\/ , 50 , 31--49, doi:10.1007/s00382--017--3580--6

2018 doi
[10]

Unterthiner, and S

Clevert, D.-A., T. Unterthiner, and S. Hochreiter, 2015: Fast and accurate deep network learning by exponential linear units (ELUs), arXiv:1511.07289 [cs.LG]

2015 arXiv
[11]

Collins, W. J., N. Bellouin, M. Doutriaux-Boucher, N. Gedney, P. Halloran, T. Hinton, J. Hughes, C. D. Jones, M. Joshi, S. Liddicoat, G. Martin, F. O’Connor, J. Rae, C. Senior, S. Sitch, I. Totterdell, A. Wiltshire, and S. Woodward, 2011: Development and evaluation of an Earth...

2011 doi
[12]

Dai, A., and K. E. Trenberth, 2002: Estimates of freshwater discharge from continents: Latitudinal and seasonal variations . J. Hydrometeor.\/ , 3 , 660--687, doi:10.1175/1525\--7541(2002)003 < 0660:EOFDFC > 2.0.CO;2

2002 doi
[13]

Dai, A., T. Qian, K. E. Trenberth, and J. D. Milliman, 2009: Changes in continental freshwater discharge from 1948 to 2004 . J. Climate\/ , 22 , 2773--2792, doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2592.1

2009 doi
[14]

Dibike, S

de Rham , L., Y. Dibike, S. Beltaos, D. Peters, B. Bonsal, and T. Prowse, 2020: A Canadian river ice database from the National Hydrometric Program archives . Earth Syst. Sci. Data\/ , 12 , 1835--1860, doi:10.5194/essd--12--1835--2020

2020 doi
[15]

P., 2005: Bias and data assimilation

Dee, D. P., 2005: Bias and data assimilation. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.\/ , 131 , 3323--3343, doi:10.1256/qj.05.137

2005 doi
[16]

Burgess, C

Derksen, C., D. Burgess, C. Duguay, S. Howell, L. Mudryk, S. Smith, C. Thackeray, and M. Kirchmeier-Young, 2019: Changes in snow, ice, and permafrost across Canada, Chapter 5 of Canada's Changing Climate Report , E. Bush and D. S. Lemmen, Eds., Government of Canada, Ottawa, On...

2019
[17]

D \'e ry, S. J., T. A. Stadnyk, M. K. MacDonald, K. A. Koenig, and C. Guay, 2018: Flow alteration impacts on Hudson Bay river discharge . Hydrol. Processes\/ , 32 , 3576--3587, doi:10.1002/hyp.13285

2018 doi
[18]

Doherty, J., 2015: Calibration and Uncertainty Analysis for Complex Environmental Models, with PEST: Model Independent Parameter Estimation, User Manual, 7th ed., available at https://pesthomepage.org (accessed May 2023), Watermark Numerical Computing, Brisbane, Australia, 227 pp

2015
[19]

Ehret, U., E. Zehe, V. Wulfmeyer, K. Warrach-Sagi, and J. Liebert, 2012: Should we apply bias correction to global and regional climate model data? Hydrol. Earth System Sci.\/ , 16 , 3391--3404, doi:10.5194/hess--16--3391--2012

2012 doi
[20]

van Verseveld , D

Eilander, D., W. van Verseveld , D. Yamazaki, A. Weerts, H. C. Winsemius, and P. J. Ward, 2021: A hydrography upscaling method for scale-invariant parametrization of distributed hydrological models. Hydrol. Earth System Sci.\/ , 25 , 5287--5313, doi:10.5194/hess--25--5287--2021

2021 doi
[21]

Eyring, V., S. Bony, G. A. Meehl, C. A. Senior, B. Stevens, R. J. Stouffer, and K. E. Taylor, 2016: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization . Geosci. Model Dev.\/ , 9 , 1937--1958, doi:10.5194/gmd--9--1937--2016

2016 doi
[22]

Gillett, V

Flato, G., N. Gillett, V. Arora, A. Cannon, and J. Anstey, 2019: Modelling future climate change, Chapter 3 of Canada's Changing Climate Report , E. Bush and D. S. Lemmen, Eds., Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, p. 74--111, (accessed April 2024 at https://changingclimate....

2019
[23]

H., and P

Freilich, M. H., and P. G. Challenor, 1994: A new approach for determining fully empirical altimeter wind speed model functions. J. Geophys. Res.\/ , 99 , 25051–25062, doi:10.1029/94JC01996

1994 doi
[24]

Gochis, D. J., M. Barlage, R. Cabell, M. Casali, A. Dugger, K. FitzGerald, M. McAllister, J. McCreight, A. Rafieei Nasab , L. Read, K. Sampson, D. Yates, and Y. Zhang, 2021: The NCAR WRF-Hydro modeling system technical description, (Version 5.2.0), NCAR Technical Note, 108 pp....

2021
[25]

Greenan, B. J. W., T. S. James, J. W. Loder, P. Pepin, K. Azetsu-Scott, D. Ianson, R. C. Hamme, D. Gilbert, J.- \'E . Tremblay, X. L. Wang, and W. Perrie, 2019: Changes in oceans surrounding Canada, Chapter 7 of Canada's Changing Climate Report , E. Bush and D. S. Lemmen, Eds....

2019
[26]

Hersbach, H., B. Bell, P. Berrisford, S. Hirahara, A. Hor \'a nyi, J. Mu \ n oz-Sabater, J. Nicolas, C. Peubey, R. Radu, D. Schepers, A. Simmons, C. Soci, S. Abdalla, X. Abellan, G. Balsamo, P. Bechtold, G. Biavati, J. Bidlot, M. Bonavita, G. De Chiara , P. Dahlgren, D. Dee, M...

2020
[27]

Innes, M., E. Saba, K. Fischer, D. Gandhi, M. C. Rudilosso, N. M. Joy, T. Karmali, A. Pal, and V. B. Shah, 2018: Fashionable modelling with Flux, arXiv:1811.01457 [cs.PL]

2018 arXiv
[28]

In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis

IPCC , 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmenta Panel on Climate Change, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung,...

2013
[29]

Jacquelin, J., 2014: R\'egressions et \'equations int\'egrales (accessed July 2024 at https://scikit-guess.readthedocs.io/en/latest/\_downloads/4cd313a50f7e08ab81758ce0bd661bc3/Regressions-et-equations-integrales.pdf)

2014
[30]

E., 1994: Randomness reexamined

Kalman, R. E., 1994: Randomness reexamined . Modeling, Identification and Control \/ , 15 , 141--151, doi:10.4173/mic.1994.3.3

1994 doi
[31]

Klotz, G

Kratzert, F., D. Klotz, G. Shalev, G. Klambauer, S. Hochreiter, and G. Nearing, 2019: Towards learning universal, regional, and local hydrological behaviors via machine learning applied to large-sample datasets . Hydrol. Earth System Sci.\/ , 23 , 5089--5110, doi:10.5194/hess-...

2019 doi
[32]

Verdin, and A

Lehner, B., K. Verdin, and A. Jarvis, 2008: New global hydrography derived from spaceborne elevation data. Eos Trans. AGU\/ , 89 , 93--94, doi:10.1029/2008EO100001

2008 doi
[33]

o r \"o smarty, B. Fekete, P. Crouzet, P. D \

Lehner, B., C. R. Liermann, C. Revenga, C. V \"o r \"o smarty, B. Fekete, P. Crouzet, P. D \"o ll, M. Endejan, K. Frenken, J. Magome, C. Nilsson, J. Robertson, R. R \"o del, N. Sindorf, and D. Wisser, 2011: High-resolution mapping of the world's reservoirs and dams for sustain...

2011 doi
[34]

N., 1985: The growth of errors in prediction, Proceedings of the International School of Physics Enrico Fermi , M

Lorenz, E. N., 1985: The growth of errors in prediction, Proceedings of the International School of Physics Enrico Fermi , M. Ghil, R. Benzi, and G. Parisi, Eds., Course 88 on Turbulence and Predictability in Geophysical Fluid Dynamics and Climate Dynamics, North Holland: Amst...

1985
[35]

Mahfouf, J.-F., 1991: Analysis of soil moisture from near-surface parameters: A feasibility study. J. Appl. Meteor.\/ , 30 , 1534--1547, doi:10.1175/1520--0450(1991)030 < 1534:AOSMFN > 2.0.CO;2

1991 doi
[36]

Maraun, D., 2016: Bias correcting climate change simulations - a critical review . Curr. Clim. Change Rep.\/ , 2 , 211--220, doi:10.1007/s40641--016--0050--x

2016 doi
[37]

Bader, T

Mauritsen, T., J. Bader, T. Becker, J. Behrens, M. Bittner, R. Brokopf, V. Brovkin, M. Claussen, T. Crueger, M. Esch, I. Fast, S. Fiedler, D. Fl \"a schner, V. Gayler, M. Giorgetta, D. S. Goll, H. Haak, S. Hagemann, C. Hedemann, C. Hohenegger, T. Ilyina, T. Jahns, D. Jimen \'e...

2019
[38]

Meehl, G. A., W. M. Washington, J. M. Arblaster, A. Hu, H. Teng, C. Tebaldi, B. N. Sanderson, J.-F. Lamarque, A. Conley, W. G. Strand, and J. B. White III , 2012: Climate system response to external forcings and climate change projections in CCSM4 . J. Climate\/ , 25 , 3661--3...

2012 doi
[39]

Mendoza, P. A., M. P. Clark, M. Barlage, B. Rajagopalan, L. Samaniego, G. Abramowitz, and H. Gupta, 2015: Are we unnecessarily constraining the agility of complex process-based models? Water Resour. Res.\/ , 51 , 716--728, doi:10.1002/2014WR015820

2015 doi
[40]

Messager, M. L., B. Lehner, G. Grill, I. Nedeva, and O. Schmitt, 2016: Estimating the volume and age of water stored in global lakes using a geo-statistical approach . Nat. Commun.\/ , 7 , 1--11, doi:10.1038/ncomms13603

2016 doi
[41]

Moriasi, D. N., M. W. Gitau, N. Pai, and P. Daggupati, 2015: Hydrologic and water quality models: Performance measures and evaluation criteria . Trans. ASABE\/ , 58 , 1763--1785, doi:10.13031/trans.58.10715

2015 doi
[42]

Champoux, 2006: Integrated modelling of the physical processes and habitats of the St

Morin, J., and O. Champoux, 2006: Integrated modelling of the physical processes and habitats of the St. Lawrence River, Chapter 3 of Water Availability Issues for the St. Lawrence River: An Environmental Synthesis , A. Talbot, Ed., Environment Canada , 22--37

2006
[43]

Nearing, G. S., Y. Tian, H. V. Gupta, M. P. Clark, K. W. Harrison, and S. V. Weijs, 2016: A philosophical basis for hydrological uncertainty . Hydrol. Sci. J.\/ , 61 , 1666--1678, doi:10.1080/02626667.2016.1183009

2016
[44]

O’Neill , B. C., E. Kriegler, K. L. Ebi, E. Kemp-Benedict , K. Riahi, D. S. Rothman, B. J. van Ruijven , D. P. van Vuuren , J. Birkmann, K. Kok, M. Levy, and W. Solecki, 2017: The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st ce...

2017 doi
[45]

S., 2017: Computer simulation, measurement, and data assimilation

Parker, W. S., 2017: Computer simulation, measurement, and data assimilation . Brit. J. Phil. Sci.\/ , 68 , 273--304, doi:10.1093/bjps/axv037

2017 doi
[46]

Pellerin, J., and F. Nzokou Tanekou , 2020: Reference Hydrometric Basin Network update, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Gatineau, Qu \'e bec, 30 pp., available at https://collaboration.cmc.ec.gc.ca/cmc/hydrometrics/www/RHBN/RHBN\_EN.pdf (accessed October 10, 2023)

2020
[47]

Karsten, A

Rafieei Nasab , A., L. Karsten, A. Dugger, K. FitzGerald, R. Cabell, D. Gochis, D. Yates, K. Sampson, J. McCreight, L. Read, Y. Zhang, and M. McAllister, 2020: Overview of National Water Model calibration: General strategy and optimization, NCAR WRF-Hydro community training ma...

2020
[48]

Rumelhart, D. E., G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams, 1986: Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature\/ , 323 , 533--536, doi:10.1038/323533a0

1986 doi
[49]

Schmidt, G. A., D. Bader, L. J. Donner, G. S. Elsaesser, J.-C. Golaz, C. Hannay, A. Molod, R. B. Neale, and S. Saha, 2017: Practice and philosophy of climate model tuning across six US modeling centers . Geosci. Model Dev.\/ , 10 , 3207--3223, doi:10.5194/gmd--10--3207--2017

2017 doi
[50]

A., 2006: Predictability past, predictability present, Predictability of Weather and Climate , T

Smith, L. A., 2006: Predictability past, predictability present, Predictability of Weather and Climate , T. Palmer and R. Hagedorn, Eds., Cambridge University Press , 217--250, doi:10.2307/j.ctv1pnc1q9.10

2006 doi
[51]

Stadnyk, T. A., M. K. MacDonald, A. Tefs, S. J. D \'e ry, K. Koenig, D. Gustafsson, K. Isberg, and B. Arheimer, 2020: Hydrological modeling of freshwater discharge into Hudson Bay using HYPE . Elem. Sci. Anth.\/ , 8 , 1--18, doi:10.1525/elementa.439

2020 doi
[52]

Stadnyk, T. A., A. Tefs, M. Broesky, S. J. D \'e ry, P. G. Myers, N. A. Ridenour, K. Koenig, L. Vonderbank, and D. Gustafsson, 2021: Changing freshwater contributions to the Arctic: A 90-year trend analysis (1981–2070) . Elem. Sci. Anth.\/ , 9 , 1--26, doi:10.1525/elementa.2020.00098

2021
[53]

Stiles, B. W., R. E. Danielson, W. L. Poulsen, M. J. Brennan, S. M. Hristova-Veleva, T.-P. Shen, and A. G. Fore, 2014: Optimized tropical cyclone winds from QuikSCAT: A neural network approach . IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.\/ , 52 , 7418--7434, doi:10.1109/TGRS.2014.2312333

2014
[54]

Taylor, K. E., R. J. Stouffer, and G. A. Meehl, 2012: An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design . Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.\/ , 93 , 485--498, doi:10.1175/JTECH--D--12--00008.1

2012 doi
[55]

Wang, J., C. Wang, V. Rao, A. Orr, E. Yan, and R. Kotamarthi, 2019: A parallel workflow implementation for PEST version 13.6 in high-performance computing for WRF-Hydro version 5.0: A case study over the midwestern United States . Geosci. Model Dev.\/ , 12 , 3523--3539, doi:10...

2019 doi
[56]

Water Survey of Canada , 2023: The National Water Data Archive (HyDAT, updated on October 24, 2022), Environment and Climate Change Canada, available at https://collaboration.cmc.ec.gc.ca/cmc/hydrometrics/www (accessed November 9, 2022)

2023
[57]

Ikeshima, J

Yamazaki, D., D. Ikeshima, J. Sosa, P. D. Bates, G. H. Allen, and T. M. Pavelsky, 2019: MERIT Hydro: A high‐resolution global hydrography map based on latest topography dataset . Water Resour. Res.\/ , 55 , 5053--5073, doi:10.1029/2019WR024873

2019 doi
[58]

Perrie, and Z

Zhang, M., W. Perrie, and Z. Long, 2019 a : Sensitivity study of North Atlantic summer cyclone activity in dynamical downscaled simulations . J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.\/ , 124 , 7599--7616, doi:10.1029/2018JD029766

2019 doi
[59]

Flato, M

Zhang, X., G. Flato, M. Kirchmeier-Young, L. Vincent, H. Wan, X. Wang, R. Rong, J. Fyfe, G. Li, and V. V. Kharin, 2019 b : Changes in temperature and precipitation across Canada, Chapter 4 of Canada's Changing Climate Report , E. Bush and D. S. Lemmen, Eds., Government of Cana...

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Altenau, E. H., T. M. Pavelsky, M. T. Durand, X. Yang, R. P. d. M. Frasson, and L. Bendezu, 2021: The Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) Mission River Database (SWORD): A global river network for satellite data products . Water Resour. Res.\/ , 57 , 1--15, doi:10.1029/2021WR030054

work page doi:10.1029/2021wr030054 2021

[2] [2]

Donnelly, and D

Berg, P., C. Donnelly, and D. Gustafsson, 2018: Near-real-time adjusted reanalysis forcing data for hydrology . Hydrol. Earth System Sci.\/ , 22 , 989--1000, doi:10.5194/hess--22--989--2018

work page doi:10.5194/hess--22--989--2018 2018

[3] [3]

Beven, K., 2019: Towards a methodology for testing models as hypotheses in the inexact sciences . Proc. Roy. Soc. A\/ , 475 , 1--19, doi:10.1098/rspa.2018.0862

work page arXiv 2019

[4] [4]

Beven, K., 2021: An epistemically uncertain walk through the rather fuzzy subject of observation and model uncertainties . Hydrol. Processes\/ , 35 , 1--9, doi:10.1002/hyp.14012

work page doi:10.1002/hyp.14012 2021

[5] [5]

Bonsal, B. R., D. L. Peters, F. Seglenieks, A. Rivera, and A. Berg, 2019: Changes in freshwater availability across Canada, Chapter 6 of Canada's Changing Climate Report , E. Bush and D. S. Lemmen, Eds., Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, p. 261--342, (accessed April 2024 at https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019)

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Bulgin, C. E., C. M. Thomas, J. A. Waller, and E. R. Woolliams, 2022: Representation uncertainty in the Earth sciences . Earth Space Sci.\/ , 9 , 1--7, doi:10.1029/2021EA002129

work page doi:10.1029/2021ea002129 2022

[7] [7]

Bush, E., and D. S. Lemmen, 2019: Canada's Changing Climate Report, Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 444 pp., (accessed April 2024 at https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019)

work page 2019

[8] [8]

J., 2016: Multivariate bias correction of climate model output: Matching marginal distributions and intervariable dependence structure

Cannon, A. J., 2016: Multivariate bias correction of climate model output: Matching marginal distributions and intervariable dependence structure . J. Climate\/ , 29 , 7045--7064, doi:10.1175/JCLI--D--15--0679.1

work page doi:10.1175/jcli--d--15--0679.1 2016