NCEP-NCAR Reanalyses Hydroclimatic Data for Rainfall-Runoff Modeling on a Watershed Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main goal of this paper is to assess the impact of climate change on a watershed scale. The most common approaches of assessing the climate change impact are limited by the uncertainties related to the availability of proper spatial and temporal hydroclimatic data. Global circulation models provide long records but on a coarse spatial scale. The historical observed information, although has better spatial resolution, is limited temporally; hence, cannot be used as an indicator of the future climate change. One way to address these drawbacks is to use reanalysis data and scale it down to local scales. In the presented research, an analysis has been made of the correspondences and/or discrepancies between observed precipitation and temperature data, and the data from the National Centers for Environmental PredictionNational Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP-NCAR) (a) global (NNGR) and (b) regional (NARR) reanalysis project. The following data between 1980 and 2005 has been extracted for the analysis: daily precipitation, maximum, mean and minimum temperature. The extracted data at several grid points in and around the Upper Thames River watershed in Southwestern Ontario, Canada have been used with a continuous hydrologic model to generate low flows. Both NARR and NNGR temperature (Tmax, Tmin and Tmean) data show a good synopsis of the climate conditions within the study area. The precipitation data from NNGR is less reliable than the NARR. The stream flows generated from the NARR dataset show encouraging result; however, some overestimations are also seen. The uncertainty estimations of the outputs are plotted using variation in mean and variance. The results indicate that the NARR dataset can be used as a good source for interpreting climate variation; nonetheless, a complete knowledge and careful investigations of the differences are necessary for application with the hydrologic models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".