Can Precipitation and Temperature from Meteorological Reanalyses Be Used for Hydrological Modeling?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper investigates the potential of reanalyses as proxies of observed surface precipitation and temperature to force hydrological models. Three global atmospheric reanalyses (ERA-Interim, CFSR, and MERRA), one regional reanalysis (NARR), and one global meteorological forcing dataset obtained by bias-correcting ERA-Interim [Water and Global Change (WATCH) Forcing Data ERA-Interim (WFDEI)] were compared to one gridded observation database over the contiguous United States. Results showed that all temperature datasets were similar to the gridded observation over most of the United States. On the other hand, precipitation from all three global reanalyses was biased, especially in summer and winter in the southeastern United States. The regional reanalysis precipitation was closer to observations since it indirectly assimilates surface precipitation. The WFDEI dataset was generally less biased than the reanalysis datasets. All datasets were then used to force a global conceptual hydrological model on 370 watersheds of the Model Parameter Estimation Experiment (MOPEX) database. River flows were computed for each watershed, and results showed that the flows simulated using NARR and gridded observations forcings were very similar to the observed flows. The simulated flows forced by the global reanalysis datasets were also similar to the observations, except in the humid continental and subtropical climatic regions, where precipitation seasonality biases degraded river flow simulations. The WFDEI dataset led to better river flows than reanalysis in the humid continental and subtropical climatic regions but was no better than reanalysis—and sometimes worse—in other climatic zones. Overall, the results indicate that global reanalyses have good potential to be used as proxies to observations to force hydrological models, especially in regions with few weather stations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".