The use of additional types of observational data has often been suggested to alleviate the ill-posedness inherent to parameter estimation of groundwater models and constrain model uncertainty. Disinformation in observational data caused by errors in either the observations or the chosen model structure may, however, confound the value of adding observational data in model conditioning. This paper uses the global generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation methodology to investigate the value of different observational data types (heads, fluxes, salinity, and temperature) in conditioning a groundwater flow and transport model of an extensively monitored field site in the Netherlands. We compared model conditioning using the real observations to a synthetic model experiment, to demonstrate the possible influence of disinformation in observational data in model conditioning. Results showed that the value of different conditioning targets was less evident when conditioning to real measurements than in a measurement error-only synthetic model experiment. While in the synthetic experiment, all conditioning targets clearly improved model outcomes, minor improvements or even worsening of model outcomes was observed for the real measurements. This result was caused by errors in both the model structure and the observations, resulting in disinformation in the observational data. The observed impact of disinformation in the observational data reiterates the necessity of thorough data validation and the need for accounting for both model structural and observational errors in model conditioning. It further suggests caution when translating results of synthetic modeling examples to real-world applications. Still, applying diverse conditioning data types was found to be essential to constrain uncertainty, especially in the transport of solutes in the model

21Saturated hydraulic conductivity (K s 38