Articles | Volume 11, issue 12
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4873-2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4873-2018
Model evaluation paper
 | 
06 Dec 2018
Model evaluation paper |  | 06 Dec 2018

Global sensitivity analysis of parameter uncertainty in landscape evolution models

Christopher J. Skinner, Tom J. Coulthard, Wolfgang Schwanghart, Marco J. Van De Wiel, and Greg Hancock

Related authors

Testing the sensitivity of the CAESAR-Lisflood landscape evolution model to grid cell size
Christopher J. Skinner and Thomas J. Coulthard
Earth Surf. Dynam., 11, 695–711, https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-11-695-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-11-695-2023, 2023
Short summary
Flash Flood!: a SeriousGeoGames activity combining science festivals, video games, and virtual reality with research data for communicating flood risk and geomorphology
Chris Skinner
Geosci. Commun., 3, 1–17, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-3-1-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-3-1-2020, 2020
Short summary
Temperature effects on the spatial structure of heavy rainfall modify catchment hydro-morphological response
Nadav Peleg, Chris Skinner, Simone Fatichi, and Peter Molnar
Earth Surf. Dynam., 8, 17–36, https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-8-17-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-8-17-2020, 2020
Short summary
Taking a Breath of the Wild: are geoscientists more effective than non-geoscientists in determining whether video game world landscapes are realistic?
Rolf Hut, Casper Albers, Sam Illingworth, and Chris Skinner
Geosci. Commun., 2, 117–124, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-117-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-117-2019, 2019
Short summary
The sensitivity of landscape evolution models to spatial and temporal rainfall resolution
Tom J. Coulthard and Christopher J. Skinner
Earth Surf. Dynam., 4, 757–771, https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-4-757-2016,https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-4-757-2016, 2016
Short summary

Related subject area

Numerical methods
ParticleDA.jl v.1.0: a distributed particle-filtering data assimilation package
Daniel Giles, Matthew M. Graham, Mosè Giordano, Tuomas Koskela, Alexandros Beskos, and Serge Guillas
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2427–2445, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2427-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2427-2024, 2024
Short summary
HETerogeneous vectorized or Parallel (HETPv1.0): an updated inorganic heterogeneous chemistry solver for the metastable-state NH4+–Na+–Ca2+–K+–Mg2+–SO42−–NO3–Cl–H2O system based on ISORROPIA II
Stefan J. Miller, Paul A. Makar, and Colin J. Lee
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2197–2219, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2197-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2197-2024, 2024
Short summary
Three-dimensional geological modelling of igneous intrusions in LoopStructural v1.5.10
Fernanda Alvarado-Neves, Laurent Ailleres, Lachlan Grose, Alexander R. Cruden, and Robin Armit
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1975–1993, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1975-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1975-2024, 2024
Short summary
Estimating volcanic ash emissions using retrieved satellite ash columns and inverse ash transport modeling using VolcanicAshInversion v1.2.1, within the operational eEMEP (emergency European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme) volcanic plume forecasting system (version rv4_17)
André R. Brodtkorb, Anna Benedictow, Heiko Klein, Arve Kylling, Agnes Nyiri, Alvaro Valdebenito, Espen Sollum, and Nina Kristiansen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1957–1974, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1957-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1957-2024, 2024
Short summary
Accounting for uncertainties in forecasting tropical-cyclone-induced compound flooding
Kees Nederhoff, Maarten van Ormondt, Jay Veeramony, Ap van Dongeren, José Antonio Álvarez Antolínez, Tim Leijnse, and Dano Roelvink
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1789–1811, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1789-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1789-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Adams, J. M., Gasparini, N. M., Hobley, D. E. J., Tucker, G. E., Hutton, E. W. H., Nudurupati, S. S., and Istanbulluoglu, E.: The Landlab v1.0 OverlandFlow component: a Python tool for computing shallow-water flow across watersheds, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1645–1663, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1645-2017, 2017.
Andersen, J. L., Egholm, D. L., Knudsen, M. F., Jansen, J. D., and Nielsen, S. B.: The periglacial engine of mountain erosion – Part 1: Rates of frost cracking and frost creep, Earth Surf. Dynam., 3, 447–462, https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-3-447-2015, 2015.
Armitage, J. J., Whittaker, A. C., Zakari, M., and Campforts, B.: Numerical modelling of landscape and sediment flux response to precipitation rate change, Earth Surf. Dynam., 6, 77–99, https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-6-77-2018, 2018.
Aronica, G., Bates, P. D., and Horritt, M. S.: Assessing the uncertainty in distributed model predictions using observed binary pattern information within GLUE, Hydrol. Process., 16, 2001–2016, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.398, 2002.
Attal, M., Tucker, G. E., Whittaker, A. C., Cowie, P. A., and Roberts, G. P.: Modelling fluvial incision and transient landscape evolution: Influence of dynamic Channel adjustment, J. Geophys. Res.-Earth, 113, 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JF000893, 2008.
Download
Short summary
Landscape evolution models are computer models used to understand how the Earth’s surface changes over time. Although designed to look at broad changes over very long time periods, they could potentially be used to predict smaller changes over shorter periods. However, to do this we need to better understand how the models respond to changes in their set-up – i.e. their behaviour. This work presents a method which can be applied to these models in order to better understand their behaviour.