Assessing reliability of global models is critical because of increasing reliance on these models to address past and projected future climate and human stresses on global water resources. Here, we evaluate model reliability based on a comprehensive comparison of decadal trends (2002–2014) in land water storage from seven global models (WGHM, PCR-GLOBWB, GLDAS NOAH, MOSAIC, VIC, CLM, and CLSM) to trends from three Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite solutions in 186 river basins (∼60% of global land area). Medians of modeled basin water storage trends greatly underestimate GRACE-derived large decreasing (≤−0.5 km³/y) and increasing (≥0.5 km³/y) trends. Decreasing trends from GRACE are mostly related to human use (irrigation) and climate variations, whereas increasing trends reflect climate variations. For example, in the Amazon, GRACE estimates a large increasing trend of ∼43 km³/y, whereas most models estimate decreasing trends (−71 to 11 km³/y). Land water storage trends, summed over all basins, are positive for GRACE (∼71–82 km³/y) but negative for models (−450 to −12 km³/y), contributing opposing trends to global mean sea level change. Impacts of climate forcing on decadal land water storage trends exceed those of modeled human intervention by about a factor of 2. The model-GRACE comparison highlights potential areas of future model development, particularly simulated water storage. The inability of models to capture large decadal water storage trends based on GRACE indicates that model projections of climate and human-induced water storage changes may be underestimated. Significance We increasingly rely on global models to project impacts of humans and climate on water resources. How reliable are these models? While past model intercomparison projects focused on water fluxes, we provide here the first comprehensive comparison of land total water storage trends from seven global models to trends from Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites, which have been likened to giant weighing scales in the sky. The models underestimate the large decadal (2002–2014) trends in water storage relative to GRACE satellites, both decreasing trends related to human intervention and climate and increasing trends related primarily to climate variations. The poor agreement between models and GRACE underscores the challenges remaining for global models to capture human or climate impacts on global water storage trends.

Groundwater depletion (GWD) compromises crop production in major global agricultural areas and has negative ecological consequences. To derive GWD at the grid cell, country, and global levels, we applied a new version of the global hydrological model WaterGAP that simulates not only net groundwater abstractions and groundwater recharge from soils but also groundwater recharge from surface water bodies in dry regions. A large number of independent estimates of GWD as well as total water storage (TWS) trends determined from GRACE satellite data by three analysis centers were compared to model results. GWD and TWS trends are simulated best assuming that farmers in GWD areas irrigate at 70% of optimal water requirement. India, United States, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China had the highest GWD rates in the first decade of the 21st century. On the Arabian Peninsula, in Libya, Egypt, Mali, Mozambique, and Mongolia, at least 30% of the abstracted groundwater was taken from nonrenewable groundwater during this time period. The rate of global GWD has likely more than doubled since the period 1960–2000. Estimated GWD of 113 km³/yr during 2000–2009, corresponding to a sea level rise of 0.31 mm/yr, is much smaller than most previous estimates. About 15% of the globally abstracted groundwater was taken from nonrenewable groundwater during this period. To monitor recent temporal dynamics of GWD and related water abstractions, GRACE data are best evaluated with a hydrological model that, like WaterGAP, simulates the impact of abstractions on water storage, but the low spatial resolution of GRACE remains a challenge.

In Paris, France, December 2015, the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) invited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide a special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways. In Nairobi, Kenya, April 2016, the IPCC panel accepted the invitation. Here we describe the response devised within the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) to provide tailored, cross-sectorally consistent impact projections to broaden the scientific basis for the report. The simulation protocol is designed to allow for (1) separation of the impacts of historical warming starting from pre-industrial conditions from impacts of other drivers such as historical land-use changes (based on pre-industrial and historical impact model simulations); (2) quantification of the impacts of additional warming up to 1.5 °C, including a potential overshoot and long-term impacts up to 2299, and comparison to higher levels of global mean temperature change (based on the low-emissions Representative Concentration Pathway RCP2.6 and a no-mitigation pathway RCP6.0) with socio-economic conditions fixed at 2005 levels; and (3) assessment of the climate effects based on the same climate scenarios while accounting for simultaneous changes in socio-economic conditions following the middle-of-the-road Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP2, Fricko et al., 2016) and in particular differential bioenergy requirements associated with the transformation of the energy system to comply with RCP2.6 compared to RCP6.0. With the aim of providing the scientific basis for an aggregation of impacts across sectors and analysis of cross-sectoral interactions that may dampen or amplify sectoral impacts, the protocol is designed to facilitate consistent impact projections from a range of impact models across different sectors (global and regional hydrology, lakes, global crops, global vegetation, regional forests, global and regional marine ecosystems and fisheries, global and regional coastal infrastructure, energy supply and demand, temperature-related mortality, and global terrestrial biodiversity).

Change of flow: Anthropogenic influence on climate has changed temperatures, precipitation, atmospheric circulation, and many other related physical processes, but has it changed river flow as well? Gudmundsson et al. analyzed thousands of time series of river flows and hydrological extremes across the globe and compared them with model simulations of the terrestrial water cycle (see the Perspective by Hall and Perdigão). They found that the observed trends can only be explained if the effects of climate change are included. Their analysis shows that human influence on climate has affected the magnitude of low, mean, and high river flows on a global scale. Science , this issue p. 1159 ; see also p. 1096

The WFDE5 dataset has been generated using the WATCH Forcing Data (WFD) methodology applied to surface meteorological variables from the ERA5 reanalysis. The WFDEI dataset had previously been generated by applying the WFD methodology to ERA-Interim. The WFDE5 is provided at 0.5^∘ spatial resolution but has higher temporal resolution (hourly) compared to WFDEI (3-hourly). It also has higher spatial variability since it was generated by aggregation of the higher-resolution ERA5 rather than by interpolation of the lower-resolution ERA-Interim data. Evaluation against meteorological observations at 13 globally distributed FLUXNET2015 sites shows that, on average, WFDE5 has lower mean absolute error and higher correlation than WFDEI for all variables. Bias-adjusted monthly precipitation totals of WFDE5 result in more plausible global hydrological water balance components when analysed in an uncalibrated hydrological model (WaterGAP) than with the use of raw ERA5 data for model forcing. The dataset, which can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.20d54e34 (C3S, 2020 b), is distributed by the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) through its Climate Data Store (CDS, C3S, 2020 a) and currently spans from the start of January 1979 to the end of 2018. The dataset has been produced using a number of CDS Toolbox applications, whose source code is available with the data – allowing users to regenerate part of the dataset or apply the same approach to other data. Future updates are expected spanning from 1950 to the most recent year. A sample of the complete dataset, which covers the whole of the year 2016, is accessible without registration to the CDS at https://doi.org/10.21957/935p-cj60 (Cucchi et al., 2020).