This page should describe Validation Tests performed for this stand alone feature and should provide links to all the result pages.
| Table of Contents |
|---|
Summary
Short summary of what was done and what was the resultGlobal validation of ALM-MOSART was performed by running the model for the period of 1972-2004 and comparing with GRDC observations and a simulation using CLM4-MOSART. Monthly simulated streamflows are compared and results showed that ALM-MOSART can reasonably reproduce the observed monthly flows and generally performs better than CLM4-MOSART.
Validation Test 1
Validation Test 1:
...
Validation of
...
ALM-MOSART Globally Against GRDC Observations and Comparison with CLM4-MOSART
Date last modified:
Contributors:
...
Hongyi Li
Provenance:
...
Results:
...
How was XXX be tested? i.e. how do we know when we have met requirement XXX. Will these unit tests be included in the ongoing going forward?
Validation Test 2
Validation Test 2: short-desciption-of-testing-here
Date last modified:
Contributors: (add your name to this list if it does not appear)
Provenance: (Run provenance Link, Code Tag, etc.)
Results: (link to results, data and plots)
...
ALM-MOSART has been run over the 1972-2004 period with the IMCLM45 compset, i.e., CLM4.5+MOSART+I2000. The validation is done mainly through comparison with the observed streamflow data from the Global Runoff Data Center (GRDC). 9 out of world largest 50 rivers are arbitrarily selected, hence the corresponding GRDC stations nearby the river mouths, as shown in the figure. The red line is for the simulated streamflow by ALM-MOSART; blue dashed line for the simulated streamflow by CLM4-MOSART; and black dashed line is for the GRDC observed streamflow. The CLM4-MOSART is the version used in Li et al. [2015]. The difference between ALM-MOSART and CLM4-MOSART is mainly due to 1) the difference of soil hydrology between ALM and CLM4.0; 2) the different methods of treating the Qgwl runoff term. In ALM-MOSART, all Qgwl values, no matter positive or negative, are directly sent to the ocean without channel routing. In CLM4-MOSART, positive Qgwl values are sent to the hillslope routing, then channel routing; while the negative Qgwl values are treated ad hoc so that the total runoff is not negative before sending to the hillslope and channel routing.
Qmonthly_CLM4_ALM_MOSART_Obs.pdf
Major conclusions:
MOSART reproduces the streamflow reasonably well at various locations coupled with ALM;
Overall, it seems that ALM-MOSART performs better than CLM4-MOSART.
View file name Qmonthly_CLM4_ALM_MOSART_Obs.pdf height 250
| name | Qmonthly_CLM4_ALM_MOSART_Obs.pdf |
|---|---|
| height | 250 |