1. Introduction
Early applications of hydrologic modeling focused mostly on small spatial scales (generally thousands of kilometers squared and less). Even when applied over larger areas, hydrologic models have usually been implemented on a basin by basin (or what might be termed “bottom up”) manner. The types of problems, and spatial scales, to which hydrological models are now applied, however, have expanded considerably as questions of how streamflow and other hydrologic variables will respond to a number of change agents (climate and land cover/land use being the most obvious) have come to the fore (Maurer 2007; Costa-Cabral et al. 2008; Tang et al. 2006). Furthermore, as the skill of weather and climate forecast models and methods have improved, a demand has evolved for linking such models, which have relatively large spatial scales, with hydrologic models. As a result, macroscale hydrology models, designed for regional, continental, and even global scales have evolved. Among these are the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model of Liang et al. (1994), and the University of Waterloo hydrologic model (WATflood; Snelgrove et al. 2005).
As the spatial scales of interest for the application of hydrologic models have increased, so has the need to explore alternative sources for the primary hydrologic forcing variable (i.e., precipitation). Although gridded station data [e.g., the continental U.S. dataset of Maurer et al. (2002) and the global dataset of Adam et al. (2006)] remain the primary source of precipitation data for large-scale hydrologic prediction, other sources have a number of advantages, particularly in regions where in situ observations are sparse. These alternative sources include precipitation products derived from satellite remote sensing, and analysis and reanalysis fields from global and regional numerical weather prediction models such as the National Centers for Environmental Prediction–National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP–NCAR) reanalysis (Kalnay et al. 1996), the 40-yr European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Re-Analysis (ERA-40; Uppala et al. 2005), and the North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR; Mesinger et al. 2006).
The objective of this paper is to evaluate alternative precipitation products suitable to drive hydrologic prediction models at large scales, particularly for parts of the globe where in situ networks are sparse. We evaluate three alternative sources of hydrological model precipitation forcings: a gridded station dataset, a satellite observation–based precipitation dataset and a numerical weather prediction model analysis precipitation field. We also evaluate the differences in the simulated water balances resulting from use of these three datasets. The hydrologic evaluations are performed over a range of accumulation times and at the spatial resolution of hydrologic predictions as simulated by the VIC macroscale hydrology model over large river basins.
Candidate gridded global datasets based on observations included Adam and Lettenmaier (2003), Adam et al. (2006), Chen et al. (2002), Willmott and Matsuura (2001), the Climatic Research Unit time series dataset (CRU TS 2.1; Mitchell and Jones 2005), and the Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) version 1 (Huffman et al. 1997). Most are monthly time series. Adam et al. (2006) was chosen because of its daily time step, spatial resolution, period of record, adjustment for gauge undercatch bias and orography, and the availability of other forcing variables such as temperature and wind required by the hydrologic model VIC.
Datasets from the second of these three classes include the Global Precipitation Climatology Project One-Degree Daily (GPCP 1DD) dataset of Huffman et al. (2001) for the period 1997–2006. These data are based on multiple passive microwave (PMW) and infrared (IR) satellite observations. The monthly total GPCP 1DD precipitation matches the GPCP version 2 monthly values (Adler et al. 2003). Other satellite precipitation datasets that we considered, which are based on PMW as well as IR and satellite radar [in the case of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM)], include the Climate Prediction Center Morphing technique (CMORPH; Joyce et al. 2004), the Precipitation Estimation from Remotely Sensed Information using Artificial Neural Networks (PERSIANN; Sorooshian et al. 2000), the Climate Prediction Center Merged Analysis of Precipitation (CMAP; Xie and Arkin 1997), and the TRMM 3B42RT (Huffman et al. 2003). As noted below, our choice of GPCP 1DD is based primarily on its long (relative to other satellite precipitation datasets) period of record, its global coverage, and its widespread use.
Among numerical weather prediction analysis fields, we assess the ECMWF ERA-40 reanalysis (Uppala et al. 2005), which, like GPCP 1DD, is global, but is available for the much longer period 1957–2002 and therefore provides complete overlap with the 1979–99 gridded station data of Adam et al. (2006). The ERA-40 reanalysis was chosen over the NCEP–NCAR reanalysis in view of the more numerous forecast products available (e.g., the ensemble prediction system and monthly and seasonal forecasts) and more recent developments (hence higher resolution among other considerations) in view of later applications.
ERA-40 and GPCP versions 1 and 2 have already been compared at a basin scale or regionally with each other (Serreze et al. 2005; Betts et al. 2003a; Troccoli and Kahlberg 2004) or with other gauge-based datasets (Hagemann et al. 2005; Betts et al. 2003b, 2005; Brock et al. 1995). In this paper however, we compare the three precipitation data products over the entire global land area, giving a more comprehensive assessment of their differences at large scales. We then use each of these datasets (described in more detail in the following section) to force the VIC hydrological model, and compare the simulated hydrological variables (e.g., soil moisture, snow water equivalent, evapotranspiration, and runoff) in terms of the predicted streamflow for nine large river basins, and the implied water balances of the continents. Although we recognize that inevitably results will vary regionally and that there are different sources of uncertainty inherent in each of the datasets, our intention is to provide a basis for determination of the appropriateness of each of the datasets for flood prediction in large river basins, especially those with sparse in situ data.
The first section describes the three classes of precipitation datasets used in our analysis. The following section summarizes the hydrology model and the experimental design. The last section presents the differences in the precipitation fields and the induced differences in the derived simulated hydrology variables for nine large river basins and then for each continent.
2. Datasets
As noted above, the three precipitation datasets we evaluate are 1) the satellite-based GPCP 1DD data, 2) the ERA-40 reanalysis, and 3) the observation-based gridded dataset of Adam et al. (2006). Each of these datasets is described briefly below.
a. GPCP 1DD
The GPCP 1DD data were provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center’s (GSFC) Laboratory for Atmospheres, which develops and computes the GPCP 1DD as a contribution to the Global Energy and Water Experiment (GEWEX) Global Precipitation Climatology Project. The GPCP 1DD combines IR techniques (e.g., the Threshold-Matched Precipitation Index; Huffman et al. 2001) in the 40°S–40°N latitude band and the rescaled Television and Infrared Observation Satellite (TIROS) Operational Vertical Sounder (TOVS) precipitation dataset of Susskind et al. (1997) outside the 40°S–40°N latitude band. The Goddard Profiling Algorithm (GPROF) version 6.0 (Kummerow et al. 1996; Olson et al. 1999), which relates the observed passive microwave brightness temperature to hydrometeor profile characteristics and then to daily surface precipitation rate, is used to derive the fractional daily occurrence of precipitation. The monthly accumulations come from the spatial interpolation of the monthly 2.5° values of the GPCP version 2 (Adler et al. 2003), which is based on satellite and gauge observations. GPCP 1DD is presently the only satellite-based precipitation product available at a daily time scale that covers the entire globe and has substantial temporal overlap with the reanalysis and gridded station dataset of Adam et al. (2006). In the applications reported here, GPCP 1DD was interpolated from 1° to 0.5° [i.e., the synergraphic mapping system (SYMAP) algorithm; Shepard 1984] and missing values (modest in number) were interpolated from nearby grid cells or when this was not possible, persisted from the day before.
b. ERA-40
The ERA-40 reanalysis (Uppala et al. 2005) data, obtained from NCAR, include air temperature, surface wind, and 6-h cumulative precipitation 4 times daily for the period from September 1957 to August 2002 at a spatial resolution of about 1.125° latitude–longitude (N80 Gaussian grid). The ERA-40 reanalysis assimilates data from numerous sources, including satellite and other observations, mostly of so-called free atmosphere variables such as humidity, temperature, and wind. Relatively few surface observations are assimilated, and in any event, precipitation observations are not assimilated, so the ERA-40 precipitation fields can be considered to be functionally independent of the satellite and gridded station datasets. Clearly, observation technologies have improved over the 1958–2002 period; however the greatest change is attributable to the “satellite divide,” which occurred in late 1978 when TOVS data began to be assimilated (Hernandez et al. 2004). Therefore, for this analysis we only considered the post-1978 period of ERA-40 data. Coincidentally, this period overlaps the entire 1979–99 period of the Adam et al. (2006) gridded station data. The ERA-40 precipitation field was interpolated from its native N80 Gaussian grid to a 0.5° latitude–longitude grid over the global land areas using the SYMAP algorithm (Shepard 1984).
c. Gridded station data
Adam et al.’s (2006) precipitation dataset (hereafter A2006) is based on the global gridded station data of Willmott and Matsuura (2001), corrected for gauge undercatch using the methods described in Adam and Lettenmaier (2003) and for orographic effects in topographically complex regions using methods described in Adam et al. (2006). The Willmott and Matsuura (2001) monthly precipitation was disaggregated to daily using available daily gauges statistics as explained in Adam and Lettenmaier (2003). Its spatial resolution is 0.5° and the dataset spans the period 1979–99. A2006 takes into account the effects of both systematic instrument-related bias and bias related to station location in orographically complex regions. We note that there remain questions as to the effects of the corrections, and some evidence suggests (e.g., over North America, as explained later) that A2006 precipitation estimates may be biased upward, at least in some regions. Nonetheless, we use A2006 as the baseline in our analyses, and as a matter of convention, we show all results as differences relative to A2006.
d. Previous comparisons and evaluations
ERA-40 and GPCP version 1 (Huffman et al. 1997) precipitation fields have previously been compared globally by Hagemann et al. (2005) and over the Amazon basin by Betts et al. (2003a), the Mississippi basin by Betts et al. (2005), the Mackenzie basin by Betts et al. (2003b), and over the pan-Arctic region by Serreze et al. (2005). Hagemann et al. (2005) found that ERA-40 precipitation was generally higher than GPCP version 1 in the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ). Troccoli and Kallberg (2004) derived correction factors in an attempt to reduce the apparent high bias of ERA-40 precipitation (relative to GPCP) in the 30°S–30°N latitude band over the ocean only, by assuming that the evaporation is error free and by closing the water budget based on this assumption. Despite the correction over the oceans, they found that ERA-40 precipitation was generally higher than GPCP within 10° of the equator and in particular near Africa. A similar analysis by Janowiak et al. (1998) showed that the NCEP–NCAR reanalysis (Kalnay et al. 1996) had larger monthly precipitation over the ITCZ land areas than GPCP version 1. Betts et al. (2005) compared ERA-40 1979–2001 monthly precipitation fields with several gauge-based precipitation datasets over land (not including A2006) and concluded that ERA-40 had a low bias in annual precipitation over the Amazon basin, but that the source of the low annual bias was the rainy season, whereas ERA-40 precipitation was biased upward in the dry season. In the Mackenzie basin, Betts et al. (2003b) generally reported higher monthly precipitation in ERA-40 than observations, although the differences decreased toward the end of the evaluation period (in 1997) when the density of gauges was lower. Serreze et al. (2005) evaluated ERA-40 over the major Arctic drainage basins and found that ERA-40 underestimated precipitation over northern Europe and Russia but overestimated precipitation over the Canadian portion of the domain. ERA-40 precipitation was compared to A2006 in the pan-Arctic for the 1979–99 period by Su et al. (2006), who found that ERA-40 captured well the monthly variability, with annual precipitation slightly (6%) lower than A2006 for the Ob, Yenisei, Lena, and Mackenzie basins.
It should be noted that some of these comparisons are complicated by the fact that various GPCP versions incorporate observations in different ways. For instance, the GPCP version 2 combination (Adler et al. 2003) includes high-latitude precipitation gauge data that version 1 did not have. GPCP version 1 was indirectly evaluated by Nijssen et al. (2001b) who concluded that GPCP version 1 underestimated precipitation in orographically complex areas, especially in the Columbia and Brahmaputra basins as deduced from the comparison of simulated and observed river discharge. GPCP version 2 was also evaluated by Adler et al. (2003) over two 2.5° grid cells in Oklahoma through comparisons with the Oklahoma Mesonet network. Adler et al. showed a 1% upward bias relative to observations for 1998–2000 monthly precipitation. Because GPCP 1DD is scaled to match GPCP version 2 monthly values, the two datasets should be similar for the same temporal and spatial aggregations.
3. Experimental design
The three precipitation datasets described above were formulated to provide forcings to the VIC model, which was run over the global land areas at 0.5° latitude–longitude spatial resolution globally. The VIC model was forced at the land surface by precipitation, surface air temperature, surface wind, humidity, and downward radiation. VIC predicted hydrologic state variables (soil moisture and snow water equivalent) and moisture (evapotranspiration and runoff) and energy (latent and sensible heat, reflected solar radiation, and emitted longwave radiation) fluxes. In practice, only precipitation, minimum and maximum daily temperatures, and surface wind are required to force VIC. The other model forcing variables are indexed to daily temperature and the daily temperature range as described by Maurer et al. (2002). The input fields for our three VIC simulations were completed with Adam et al. (2006) temperature (along with other fields derived from the surface air temperature and daily temperature range) and wind fields. Identical forcing fields—except precipitation—and common model initial conditions and parameters allowed us to isolate the effects of differences in precipitation fields on our hydrologic simulations.
a. Common temperature and wind fields
The station-based A2006 global precipitation dataset at 0.5° latitude–longitude spatial resolution was used directly to force VIC, along with daily temperature maxima and minima, which were extended from Nijssen et al. (2001a), and wind data was taken from NCEP–NCAR reanalysis using linear interpolation. To complement the 1979–99 precipitation dataset, the 1979–93 Nijssen et al. (2001a) global daily temperature dataset was extended to 1999 at 0.5° spatial resolution (Adam et al. 2006). Note that the original data reported in Nijssen et al. (2001a) were derived at 0.5° and then aggregated to 2°; the aggregation was dropped. As in Maurer et al. (2002), surface wind was taken from the NCEP–NCAR reanalysis (Kalnay et al. 1996) and linearly interpolated to 0.5°. VIC was then run with identical temperature and wind fields, and with the three precipitation datasets: A2006, ERA-40 precipitation interpolated to 0.5°, and the GPCP 1DD precipitation field (also interpolated to 0.5°).
We considered using ERA-40 surface air temperature and other variables in our hydrologic simulation with ERA-40 precipitation input field; however, we opted not to do so in the interest of isolating the hydrologic implications of differences in precipitation alone.
b. Common initialization and parameterization
For all three VIC simulations, a common model initialization strategy was used. Specifically, the model was run using Adam et al.’s (2006) forcing dataset for the 1979–96 period starting with initial soil moisture set to field capacity on 1 January 1979. The snow and soil moisture values on 1 January 1997 were then used to initialize simulations for each of the three datasets for the period 1997–99, which is the period of comparison in this study. In this way, differences in the derived hydrologic variables are entirely attributable to differences in the precipitation forcing data (quantity and spatial distribution) during the period 1997–99, and not to model initialization. For all three datasets, model parameters were taken from Nijssen et al. (2001b), interpolated to the 0.5° grid. Other soil and vegetation parameters were derived at 0.5° resolution, as described in Su et al. (2005) and used in Su et al. (2005) and Haddeland et al. (2006).
4. Results
We present results for annual precipitation and derived hydrologic variables for nine large river basins, and then for each continent. We also compare ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD precipitation at a daily time scale for the 1997–2002 period (longer overlap). The A2006 data are not included in these last comparisons because they end in 1999 and in any event the monthly observations are disaggregated to a daily time step using a statistical scheme based on observed daily precipitation. Hereafter, references to A2006, GPCP 1DD, and ERA-40 signify either the raw precipitation data or the hydrologic variables simulated by VIC when forced with those datasets. For example, ERA-40 runoff refers to the VIC-simulated runoff when forced with ERA-40 data, and not the ERA-40 runoff as simulated by the ECMWF land surface model embedded in the ERA-40 reanalysis. Comparisons, unless otherwise specified, are relative to A2006. Although A2006 precipitation is based on observations and is expected therefore to be closer to the truth in regions with high precipitation gauge density, uncertainties as explained below arise in certain regions and the choice of A2006 as reference is mostly a matter of convention, and this convention should not necessarily be interpreted as meaning that it is generally preferred.
a. Primary basins
Nine primary basins were selected from among the 26 simulated by Nijssen et al. (2001b) based on the presence of minimal anthropogenic effects (primarily reservoir storage and diversion), availability of observed river discharge, and our desire to represent a range of hydroclimatic conditions. Observed discharge data come from the Global Runoff Data Center (GRDC). Because there is no specific calibration of the VIC model in this analysis (e.g., to minimize differences between simulated and observed discharge when a given precipitation dataset is used to force the VIC model), the comparison with observed discharges is not intended to help decide which dataset is closer to reality, but rather is a means of evaluating the sensitivity of predicted runoff to differences in the forcing data. The basins we selected are the Amazon, Congo, Danube, Mackenzie, Mekong, Mississippi, Senegal, Yellow, and Yenisei (Fig. 1).
Figure 2 and Table 1 show that in the two Arctic basins (i.e., the Yenisei and Mackenzie), ERA-40 annual precipitation is very close to A2006, whereas GPCP 1DD precipitation is much lower. This result is similar to the findings of Su et al. (2006). Despite the slight precipitation underestimation relative to A2006, ERA-40 slightly overestimates the runoff (Table 1) because of different precipitation spatial distributions (other meteorological forcings are identical). GPCP 1DD underestimates all derived hydrologic variables. Serreze et al. (2005) found that ERA-40 overestimates precipitation in Arctic North America and underestimates it in Russia and northern Europe relative to GPCP version 1. However GPCP version 2 (to which GPCP 1DD is scaled) includes more gauge stations than in version 1 (Adler et al. 2003), which might explain the difference in our results with theirs.
In the tropical basins (i.e., the Amazon, Congo, Mekong, and part of the Senegal), GPCP 1DD and ERA-40 both have lower precipitation than A2006 except in the Mekong, where ERA-40 is very close to A2006 and GPCP 1DD is slightly higher than A2006 (Fig. 2; Table 1). ERA-40 is closer to A2006 in the Congo and Mekong (−13.4% and −0.4%, respectively) but differs more in the Senegal (−51.6%) and the Amazon (−26.5%). Both ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD underestimate runoff relative to A2006 in all tropical basins. As a result, ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD evapotranspiration estimates are usually lower than A2006 except in the Mekong, and in the Congo for ERA-40 (Table 1). Both ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD underestimate A2006 annual discharge (Fig. 2; Table 2) although ERA-40 is closer to the GRDC (observed) annual discharge in the Mekong, Senegal, and Congo. Betts et al. (2005) evaluated the ERA-40 water and energy budgets over the Amazon basin using observations from Dai et al. (2004) and Marengo (2004, 2005) over a longer period of time. They concluded that “ERA-40 precipitation overestimates observations during the rainy season, underestimates during dry season and has a very low annual bias.” Our results show the same tendency in seasonal bias (not shown) with a low annual bias of −2.3% in precipitation for ERA-40 relative to GPCP 1DD. Relatively to A2006, ERA-40 precipitation is very close in the dry season and has a bias in the rainy season (annual −26.5%).
In the midlatitude rainy basins (i.e., the Danube, Yellow, and Mississippi), both ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD underestimate precipitation relative to A2006, except in the Yellow River basin where ERA-40 annual precipitation is slightly higher than A2006 (Fig. 2; Table 1). The Yellow River basin has a semiarid cold climate, and the relative apparent biases for ERA-40 are somewhat similar to the Arctic basins, with ERA-40 runoff and snow water equivalent (SWE) both higher than A2006 and evapotranspiration lower. Results for GPCP 1DD and the other basins show lower evapotranspiration, runoff, soil moisture, SWE, and annual discharge relative to A2006 (Table 1). While the ERA-40 annual discharge is very close to A2006 (and GRDC observations) in the Mississippi, GPCP 1DD is closer in the Danube (Table 2; Fig. 2). Even though GPCP 1DD precipitation is closer to A2006 than to ERA-40, the GPCP 1DD SWE underestimation is either close (e.g., Danube) or much larger (e.g., Mississippi) than for ERA-40 due to different spatial distributions.
b. Continental-scale evaluation
Figure 3 shows the 1997–99 annual daily average precipitation for ERA-40, GPCP 1DD, and A2006 over the global land areas. Figure 4 shows the difference between the 1997–99 annual daily precipitation averages of GPCP 1DD and A2006, ERA-40 and A2006, and ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD. The delineation in Fig. 4 shows the area where the orographic correction of A2006 was applied. Figure 5 shows the monthly cross correlation for the longest overlap period between A2006 and GPCP 1DD (1997–99), A2006 and ERA-40 (1979–99), and ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD (1997–August 2002). Each month value has first been standardized (by subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation) with the corresponding month time series (i.e., 1979–99 for A2006, 1997–2005 for GPCP 1DD, and 1979-August 2002 for ERA-40). The cross correlation is then applied to the standardized fields over the overlap period. This cross correlation indicates the pairwise agreement of the datasets with respect to monthly anomalies, with the seasonal cycle removed. Figure 6 shows the standard monthly cross correlation; the cross correlation is applied to the 1979–99, 1997–2001, and 1997–99 monthly time series of A2006 and ERA-40, ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD, and A2006 and GPCP 1DD, respectively, with no prior standardization. This standard cross correlation provides a measure of the agreement in seasonality between the pairs of datasets because the seasonal cycle mostly influences the cross correlations rather than monthly anomalies. For clarity, the terms “monthly anomaly” and “monthly anomaly correlation” are used for the first cross correlation, and “seasonality” and “seasonality correlation” for the second cross correlation. For purposes of these comparisons, Eurasia is split between Asia, Russia, and Europe–Middle East. Results are also segregated for areas of complex terrain (delineation shown in Fig. 4) and the tropical band, as well as for the entire global land area.
1) North America
Figures 3 and 4 and Table 3 show that over North America, both GPCP 1DD and ERA-40 have lower annual precipitation, (by 34.2% and 17.9%, respectively), relative to A2006. These results at the continental scale for North America are consistent with the results for the Mississippi basin shown in section 2a. The GPCP 1DD and ERA-40 runoff is smaller than A2006 by 26.8% and 52.1%, respectively, over North America, whereas evapotranspiration is less by 4.1% and 5.8%, respectively. Differences in SWE are due to the differences in precipitation and to its spatial distribution (Fig. 4), and especially to the orographic correction in A2006. ERA-40 SWE is only slightly lower than A2006 (by 2.1%) whereas GPCP 1DD (which is known to substantially underestimate precipitation over mountainous areas) produces 23.5% less SWE. These differences have considerable geographic variability; ERA-40 tends to have less SWE than A2006 in the Colorado, Mississippi, and Columbia basins and more in the Yukon, Saint Lawrence, and Mackenzie basins (see the appendix).
On the other hand, GPCP 1DD produces less SWE than A2006 virtually everywhere. There is evidence of a contrast in the differences in precipitation (Fig. 4) in the vicinity of the U.S.–Canadian border, which may have to do with the gauges used for the rescaling and the gauge catch deficiency adjustment of the Adam and Lettenmaier (2003) precipitation dataset. ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD tend to be closer to each other over the U.S., with both being substantially drier than to A2006. Over Canada though, A2006 and GPCP 1DD tend to be closer to each other, and both are drier than ERA-40. As explained in Adam and Lettenmaier (2003), precipitation over Canada was handled in a slightly different way than elsewhere globally due to separate reports of liquid and solid precipitation, and this difference applies to A2006 as well. An equivalent procedure was adopted in GPCP version 1 (and 2) using Global Precipitation Climatology Center (GPCC) precipitation with stations reporting solid and liquid values over Canada. The use of this equivalent procedure in GPCP versions performed specifically over Canada explains the spatially homogeneous difference in magnitude between GPCP 1DD and A2006, while comparisons with ERA-40 tend to show some inhomogeneities in the vicinity of the U.S–Canadian border (Fig. 4). Despite this locally specific procedure, monthly correlations are more spatially consistent between ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD over the entire North American continent, than with A2006 (Figs. 5 and 6).
2) South America
Averaged over South America, Table 3 shows that ERA-40 precipitation is overall closer to A2006 (7.3%) than GPCP 1DD (22.9%). Figure 4 shows that the ERA-40 differences from A2006 are larger locally than are GPCP 1DD. The largest ERA-40 precipitation differences from A2006 are localized in the northern part of the continent, in the Sao Francisco, Amazon, and Uruguay basins, and along the Andes (see also the appendix). As for North America, runoff is the most sensitive variable with −19.9% and −43.9% differences for ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD, respectively, relative to A2006 whereas evapotranspiration is higher by 5% for ERA-40 and lower by 3% for GPCP 1DD relative to A2006 (Table 3). SWE is much smaller for both ERA-40 (50.8%) and GPCP 1DD (52.6%) relative to A2006, a result that probably has to do with the much smaller areas affected by snow in South America relative to North America when performing the orographic correction. The seasonality correlation (Table 3) relative to A2006 is higher for GPCP 1DD (0.74) than for ERA-40 (0.53). The monthly correlations (Fig. 5) show that ERA-40, with correlations lower than 0.35, has very different characteristics in the northern part of the continent than the other two datasets. In the Amazon basin, for instance, ERA-40 captures neither the seasonality nor the monthly anomalies of the other two datasets. In general, GPCP 1DD and A2006 agree much more with each other on the basis of monthly anomalies and seasonality than either do with ERA-40, especially in the northern part of the continent and some high-altitude regions (Figs. 5 and 6).
3) Africa
In Africa, both ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD produce lower precipitation than A2006, by 22.5% and 29.3%, respectively (Table 3). ERA-40 in general agrees more with GPCP 1DD than with A2006 (see Fig. 4). In areas of very low precipitation, ERA-40 tends to produce less precipitation than GPCP 1DD [e.g., in the Senegal and Lake Chad basins (see the appendix)]. ERA-40 evapotranspiration is 4.7% lower and the runoff is 43.1% lower (Table 3) than A2006. ERA-40’s lower precipitation relative to A2006 for very dry areas is confirmed by the highest negative relative differences in dry basins like the Senegal, Niger, and Lake Chad (see the appendix). GPCP 1DD precipitation is 29.3% lower than A2006 (the greatest difference of all the continents), leading to the largest relative difference in runoff (−58%) and evapotranspiration (−7.8%) among all continents as well. Figure 5 shows that ERA-40 tends not to show the monthly anomalies in high precipitation areas (central Africa) and drier northern Africa that are present in A2006, while correlations are above 0.5 between ERA-40 and A2006 in dry southern Africa. GPCP 1DD correlates more highly with A2006, although it presents some similar spatial characteristics to ERA-40.
4) Oceania
Spatial results can be divided into two subregions within Oceania: Australia–New Zealand and New Guinea–Indonesia. ERA-40 is much wetter than A2006 and GPCP 1DD in New Guinea and Indonesia and drier elsewhere (Fig. 4). Over all Oceania, ERA-40 has 17.6% higher precipitation than A2006 (Table 3), and consequently, higher runoff (42.7%) and evapotranspiration (6.6%). ERA-40 soil moisture is less than A2006 (−6%), but this result mostly reflects the different characteristics of the two subregions: the increase in precipitation is in hot and wet areas where evapotranspiration is limited by the amount of water and not by the energy necessary to evaporate the water (Fig. 4). This implies that there is no or little change in soil moisture over the wet areas and the decrease in soil moisture is mostly traceable to Australia (dry areas with lower precipitation). GPCP 1DD precipitation is close to A2006 (−6.6%), but its runoff is 21% lower and evapotranspiration is higher by 4.9% due to differences in precipitation patterns (Table 3). ERA-40, GPCP 1DD, and A2006 are well correlated (above 0.5) for monthly anomalies over Australia, but correlations are low (between 0.05 and 0.5) over New Guinea and Indonesia, like most other areas in the tropical band (Fig. 5).
5) Russian part of Eurasia
Over most of the Russian part of Eurasia, ERA-40 has lower precipitation than A2006 but much higher precipitation in a few locations (Fig. 4), resulting in an overall 5.8% higher precipitation and 14.4% higher runoff than A2006 (Table 3). GPCP 1DD has lower precipitation than A2006 (−11.8%), resulting in 20.7% lower runoff. Both ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD evapotranspiration and soil moisture are close to A2006. As found in other regions, GPCP 1DD has less SWE (9.2%) relative to A2006, mostly because of lower precipitation in mountainous areas. ERA-40 has more SWE (28%). ERA-40, GPCP 1DD, and A2006 reasonably agree on the monthly anomalies (Fig. 5).
6) Asian part of Eurasia
Figure 4 shows that ERA-40 differences from the other two datasets are variable over Asia with higher precipitation relative to A2006 in the Himalayas but a tendency toward lower precipitation elsewhere, as for Russia. Locally, ERA-40 precipitation is higher in the Brahmaputra, Ganges, and Indus River basins (see the appendix), lower in the southern and western basins of Asia, and close to A2006 in south eastern basins like the Mekong (Table 1 and see the Mekong River basin discussion above). Overall ERA-40 precipitation for Asia is very close to A2006, while GPCP 1DD precipitation is 20.4% lower than A2006 (Table 3). ERA-40 runoff is 13.2% lower than A2006 and evapotranspiration is 12.4% higher. ERA-40 SWE is much higher than A2006 (96.9%). GPCP 1DD runoff is 40.6% lower than A2006, while evapotranspiration and soil moisture are close to A2006. Similar to other regions, GPCP 1DD SWE is lower than A2006. Although GPCP 1DD and ERA-40 do not agree well on the amount of precipitation over the Himalayas (Fig. 4), their agreement there is highest in terms of monthly anomaly correlations (Fig. 5). On the other hand, ERA-40 and A2006 monthly anomalies agree the least in the Himalaya region. However, aside from the Himalayan area, the agreement among the datasets in this region in terms of the seasonality of precipitation is among the highest of all continents (Table 3).
7) Europe and the Middle East
In Europe and the Middle East, ERA-40 precipitation tends to be consistently lower than A2006 with an overall −41.3% difference relative to A2006, while GPCP 1DD is 20.6% lower than A2006 (Table 3), but in a spatially inhomogeneous manner (Fig. 4). This is the largest difference between ERA-40 and A2006 over all zones, and is attributable to the substantial area over which the A2006’s orographic adjustment is applicable. ERA-40 runoff is consistently lower than the A2006 runoff (−56.1%), while GPCP 1DD runoff is 35.4% lower on average (Table 3). GPCP 1DD evapotranspiration and soil moisture are very close to A2006 whereas ERA-40 evapotranspiration is 17.3% lower. Similar to all other continents GPCP 1DD has lower SWE relatively to A2006. Despite locally varying results, ERA-40 also has lower SWE (−18.4%). Monthly anomaly correlations are fairly consistent among ERA-40, GPCP 1DD, and A2006 (Fig. 5; Table 3). As shown in Fig. 6, the monthly seasonality agrees well among the three datasets.
8) Complex terrain
We separately analyzed all areas of the globe with substantial topographic complexity at large scales, which, following A2006, was defined as 0.5° latitude–longitude grid cells having a slope larger than 6 m (1000 m)−1 (Fig. 4 of A2006, delineation in Fig. 4). In those areas, ERA-40 is close to A2006 with a −5.9% difference relative to A2006, while GPCP 1DD is 31.7% lower on average (which reflects the absence of an orographic correction in GPCP 1DD). Both ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD evapotranspiration and soil moisture are close to A2006 but ERA-40 runoff is 11.4% lower and GPCP 1DD is 50.4% lower (Table 3). As in previous results, ERA-40 SWE is close to A2006 despite local differences and GPCP 1DD SWE is much lower (−20.2%). Interestingly, even though GPCP 1DD does not agree well with A2006 in annual quantities, it does agree the best in terms of monthly seasonality and monthly anomalies (Table 3). ERA-40 is closer to GPCP 1DD than A2006 by those two measures.
9) Tropical band
We define the tropical band as the global land area between 25°N and 25°S. It corresponds to the average ITCZ location over land areas and includes the seasonal zonal shift. In the tropical band, ERA-40 has higher precipitation than GPCP 1DD (20.3%; Table 3), which is in agreement with Hagemann et al. (2005). However both ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD have lower precipitation relative to A2006 (6.6% and 22.3%, respectively). As elsewhere, runoff is the most sensitive of the simulated hydrology variables with −16.4% and −43% differences for ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD, respectively, relative to A2006 although local differences vary (Congo, Niger, Indonesia, Amazon, and Orinoco, see the appendix). GPCP 1DD and A2006 have the closest agreement in terms of monthly and seasonality anomalies (Table 3).
10) 10) Global land areas
Globally, ERA-40 has 9.6% lower precipitation than A2006, resulting in 17.7% lower runoff, similar evapotranspiration, and 4.3% lower soil moisture (Table 3). ERA-40 SWE is 8.6% higher than A2006, mostly because of higher SWE in Russia and Asia as noted earlier. GPCP 1DD has 22.8% lower precipitation than A2006, with 41.8% lower runoff, 2.9% lower evapotranspiration, and 5% lower soil moisture. SWE is 19% lower than A2006. Similar to most of the regional differences, the global monthly correlation is the highest (0.47) between GPCP 1DD and A2006, although the monthly correlation between ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD is very close (0.46). The monthly seasonality correlation is also the highest between GPCP 1DD and A2006 (0.70).
Table 4 (adapted and extended from Maurer et al. 2000) shows the global water balance for the three datasets, in comparison with other published climatologies. ERA-40 (using all land surface budget components from ERA-40, as contrasted with VIC predictions driven with ERA-40 precipitation), and GPCC precipitation and GRDC observed runoff estimates for the corresponding global land area (GRDC 2004, unpublished manuscript) have been added to complete the range of climatologies. Some uncertainty is inherent to the different processing of those climatologies. For example, the difference in precipitation between raw ERA-40 (1997–99) and ERA-40 used to force VIC during 1997–99 is due to the different processing steps (e.g., including only ERA-40’s 2.5° land cells as opposed to interpolation to the 0.5° land grid using a few ocean cells). Taken in comparison with all of the Table 4 estimates, A2006 precipitation is at the high end of the range of the climatologies, whereas GPCP 1DD has the lowest estimate and ERA-40 precipitation interpolated to the VIC grid is near the middle of the range. VIC-simulated evapotranspiration estimates are all lower than the average of the alternate climatologies and runoff is larger. However, the highest evapotranspiration estimates in the climatology range are due to very low runoff estimates in comparison to observed GRDC runoff. When evapotranspiration estimates are derived by subtracting the GRDC runoff from the available precipitation climatologies [ERA-40, GPCP version 1, Lvovitch (1973), Baumgartner and Reichel (1975), and GPCC)], the simulated VIC evapotranspiration estimates using the three different precipitation datasets (ERA-40, GPCP 1DD, and A2006) are then higher than the average climatology evapotranspiration estimate (404 mm; Table 4). Despite the differences in precipitation between the different datasets (i.e., A2006, ERA-40, and GPCP 1DD), all three runoff ratios are within the range of the other estimates, although somewhat higher for A2006 and ERA-40 (Table 4).
c. ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD precipitation intermittency
Both ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD datasets are available at a daily time steps. The 1997–August 2002 daily intermittency and root-mean-square differences (RMSDs) were compared between the two datasets on a grid cell by grid cell basis. Agreements of rain occurrence (either both datasets record a zero or both datasets record a nonzero rain amount) vary from 59% in North America and Russia to 74% in Africa (Table 5). Those values increase when the intermittency is computed as an average over river basins (not shown). Figure 7 shows the global intermittency agreement and RMSD. GPCP 1DD and ERA-40 daily intermittency agree best in the tropical band and least in the Arctic regions. The intermittency agreement results are lower than the 0.85–0.94 values, depending on the density of the gauge network, obtained by Adler et al. (2003) who compared monthly GPCP version 2 with two 2.5° cells within Oklahoma Mesonet region (Brock et al. 1995) because our analysis was made at a higher temporal resolution (daily), and on a much larger domain.
Daily RMSDs relative to GPCP 1DD (Fig. 7a) are greatest in the equatorial regions, various parts of Russia, northern Quebec and Ontario, western North America, and India. RMSDs are smallest in Europe and the Middle East (Table 5).
5. Conclusions
Global hydrologic simulations using the hydrological model VIC and three different meteorological forcing datasets (A2006, ERA-40, and GPCP 1DD) were evaluated for the 1997–99 period during which all datasets were available. The results of our comparisons are generally consistent with previous, more local, comparisons of the three datasets, but the global comparisons in this paper allow a larger spatial perspective of the differences among the datasets and their implications for the water balance at large scales. In particular, GPCP 1DD tends to have less precipitation than both A2006 and ERA-40 nearly everywhere and especially in mountainous areas. ERA-40 precipitation is generally intermediate between A2006 and GPCP 1DD. Simulated evapotranspiration tends to be toward the high end of the range of climatologies, when derived by difference using GRDC runoff observations. Globally and in every continent, simulated runoff is much more sensitive to precipitation differences than is evapotranspiration. At the global scale, simulated runoff to precipitation ratios were in the range of previous climatology estimates.
Precipitation seasonality generally agreed well among the three precipitation datasets. However, monthly precipitation anomalies were only moderately correlated globally, due mostly to low correlations among the three datasets in South America, Africa, and the tropical band. The Russian part of Eurasia has on average the highest correlations among the three precipitation datasets in terms of monthly anomalies. The daily agreement of intermittency of precipitation between GPCP 1DD and ERA-40 exceeded 50% over most of the globe.
Because all three precipitation datasets are subject to errors, albeit of different types, no conclusion could be drawn as to which precipitation dataset is closest to truth in general. For example, the lowest agreement among the precipitation datasets is over Africa, which has the lowest observation network density. River discharge does not help much in resolving the discrepancies because its simulation is dependent on calibration to river discharge observations.
Nonetheless, there is some overall preference for ERA-40 among the three datasets because of its long climatology (cf. GPCP 1DD), daily availability, and good agreement with A2006 over at least some parts of the globe with high station densities, despite an overall tendency for underestimation relative to A2006 except in the Arctic and in Asia, and a significant apparent precipitation overestimation in the Himalaya. Those differences could be corrected via a bias correction or adjustment of monthly values with respect to A2006. However, such an approach would need to first address issues such as the discontinuity in A2006 precipitation at the Canadian–U.S. border and questions as to the magnitude of the orographic adjustment in some locations. Bias correction of the satellite-based datasets is problematic because of the relatively short satellite records and the lack of overlap of the climatologies, although these issues may be resolvable with time. Our preference therefore is for ERA-40 precipitation for use in global hydrological applications, recognizing the nature of apparent biases over some portions of the global land areas.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Jenny Adam for her advice concerning the A2006 dataset.
REFERENCES
Adam, J. C., and Lettenmaier D. P. , 2003: Adjustment of global gridded precipitation for systematic bias. J. Geophys. Res., 108 .4257, doi:10.1029/2002JD002499.
Adam, J. C., Clark E. A. , Lettenmaier D. P. , and Wood E. F. , 2006: Correction of global precipitation products for orographic effects. J. Climate, 19 , 15–38.
Adler, R. F., and Coauthors, 2003: The version-2 Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) monthly precipitation analysis (1979–present). J. Hydrometeor., 4 , 1147–1167.
Baumgartner, A., and Reichel E. , 1975: The World Water Balance: Mean Annual Global, Continental and Maritime Precipitation, Evaporation and Runoff. Elsevier Scientific, 179 pp.
Betts, A. K., Ball J. H. , Bosilovich M. , Viterbo P. , Zhang Y-C. , and Rossow W. B. , 2003a: Intercomparison of water and energy budgets for five Mississippi subbasins between ECMWF reanalysis (ERA-40) and NASA Data Assimilation Office fvGCM for 1990-1999. J. Geophys. Res., 108 .8618, doi:10.1029/2002JD003127.
Betts, A. K., Ball J. H. , and Viterbo P. , 2003b: Evaluation of the ERA-40 surface water budget and surface temperature for the Mackenzie River basin. J. Hydrometeor., 4 , 1194–1211.
Betts, A. K., Ball J. H. , Viterbo P. , Dai A. , and Marengo J. , 2005: Hydrometeorology of the Amazon in ERA-40. J. Hydrometeor., 6 , 764–774.
Brock, F. V., Crawford K. C. , Elliott R. L. , Cuperus G. W. , Stadler S. J. , Johnson H. L. , and Eilts M. D. , 1995: The Oklahoma Mesonet—A technical overview. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 12 , 5–19.
Chen, M. P., Xie P. , Janowiak J. E. , and Arkin P. A. , 2002: Global land precipitation: A 50-yr monthly analysis based on gauge observations. J. Hydrometeor., 3 , 249–266.
Costa-Cabral, M. C., Richey J. E. , Goteti G. , Lettenmaier D. P. , Feldkoetter C. , and Snidvongs A. , 2008: Landscape structure and use, climate, and water movement in the Mekong River basin. Hydrol. Processes, in press, doi:10.1002/hyp.6740.
Dai, A., Trenberth K. E. , and Qian T. , 2004: A global dataset of Palmer severity index for 1870–2002: Relationship with soil moisture and effects of surface warming. J. Hydrometeor., 5 , 1117–1130.
Haddeland, I., Skaugen T. , and Lettenmaier D. P. , 2006: Anthropogenic impacts on continental surface water fluxes. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33 .L08406, doi:10.1029/2006GL026047.
Hagemann, S., Arpe K. , and Bengtsson L. , 2005: Validation of the hydrological cycle of ERA-40. ERA-40 Project Rep. Series 24, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, United Kingdom, 46 pp.
Hernandez, A., Kelly G. , and Uppala S. , 2004: The TOVS/ATOVS observing system in ERA-40. ERA-40 Project Rep. Series 16, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, United Kingdom, 49 pp.
Huffman, G. J., and Coauthors, 1997: The Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) combined precipitation dataset. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78 , 5–20.
Huffman, G. J., Adler R. F. , Morrissey M. , Bolvin D. T. , Curtis S. , Joyce R. , McGavock B. , and Susskind J. , 2001: Global precipitation at one-degree daily resolution from multisatellite observations. J. Hydrometeor., 2 , 36–50.
Huffman, G. J., Adler R. F. , Stocker E. F. , Bolvin D. T. , and Nelkin E. J. , 2003: Analysis of TRMM 3-hourly multisatellite precipitation estimates computed in both real and post-real time. Preprints. 12th Conf. on Satellite Meteorology and Oceanography, Long Beach, CA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., P4.11.
Janowiak, J. E., Gruber A. , Kondragunta C. R. , Livezey R. E. , and Huffman G. J. , 1998: A Comparison of the NCEP/ NCAR reanalysis precipitation and the GPCP rain gauge–satellite combined dataset with observational error considerations. J. Climate, 11 , 2960–2979.
Joyce, R. J., Janowiak J. E. , Arkin P. A. , and Xie P. , 2004: CMORPH: A method that produces global precipitation estimates from passive microwave and infrared data at high spatial and temporal resolution. J. Hydrometeor., 5 , 487–503.
Kalnay, E., and Coauthors, 1996: The NCEP/NCAR 40-Year Reanalysis Project. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 77 , 437–471.
Kummerow, C., Olson W. S. , and Giglio L. , 1996: A simplified scheme for obtaining precipitation and vertical hydrometeor profiles from passive microwave sensors. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 34 , 1213–1232.
Korzun, V. I., 1978: World Water Balance and Water Resources of the World. Studies and Reports in Hydrology, Vol. 25, UNESCO, 663 pp.
Liang, X., Lettenmaier D. P. , Wood E. F. , and Burges S. J. , 1994: A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation models. J. Geophys. Res., 99 , 14415–14428.
Lvovitch, M. I., 1973: The global water balance. Eos, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 54 , 28–42.
Marengo, J. A., 2004: Interdecadal variability and trends of rainfall across the Amazon basin. Theor. Appl. Climatol., 78 , 79–96.
Marengo, J. A., 2005: Characteristics and spatio-temporal variability of the Amazon River basin water budget. Climate Dyn., 24 , 11–22.
Maurer, E. P., 2007: Uncertainty in hydrologic impacts of climate change in the Sierra Nevada, California, under two emissions scenarios. Climatic Change, 82 , 3–4. 309–325.
Maurer, E. P., Nijssen B. , and Lettenmaier D. P. , 2000: Use of reanalysis land surface water budget variables in hydrologic studies. GEWEX News, No. 4, International GEWEX Project Office, Silver Spring, MD, 6–8.
Maurer, E. P., Wood A. W. , Adam J. C. , and Lettenmaier D. P. , 2002: A long-term hydrologically based dataset of land surface fluxes and states for the conterminous United States. J. Climate, 15 , 3237–3251.
Mesinger, F., and Coauthors, 2006: North American regional reanalysis. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 87 , 343–360.
Mitchell, T. D., and Jones P. D. , 2005: An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high-resolution grids. Int. J. Climatol., 25 , 693–712.
Nijssen, B., Schnur R. , and Lettenmaier D. P. , 2001a: Global retrospective estimation of soil moisture using the Variable Infiltration Capacity land surface model, 1980–93. J. Climate, 14 , 1790–1808.
Nijssen, B., O’Donnell G. M. , Lettenmaier D. P. , Lohmann D. , and Wood E. F. , 2001b: Predicting the discharge of global rivers. J. Climate, 14 , 3307–3323.
Oki, T., 1997: Validating the runoff from LSP-SVAT models using a global river routing network by one degree mesh. Preprints. 13th Conf. on Hydrology, Long Beach, CA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 319–322.
Oki, T., Musiake K. , Matsuyama H. , and Masuda K. , 1995: Global atmospheric water balance and runoff from large river basins. Hydrol. Processes, 9 , 655–678.
Olson, W. S., Kummerow C. D. , Yong Y. , and Tao W-T. , 1999: Atmospheric latent heating distributions in the tropics from satellite passive microwave radiometer measurements. J. Appl. Meteor., 38 , 633–644.
Shepard, D. S., 1984: Computer mapping: The SYMAP interpolation algorithm. Spatial Statistics and Models, G. L. Gaile and C. Willmott, Eds., Springer, 133–145.
Serreze, M. C., Barrett A. P. , and Lo F. , 2005: Northern high-latitude precipitation as depicted by atmospheric reanalysis and satellite retrievals. Mon. Wea. Rev., 133 , 3407–3430.
Snelgrove, K. R., Soulis E. D. , Seglenieks F. R. , and Kouwen N. , 2005: The application of hydrological models in MAGS: Lessons learned for PUB. Prediction in Ungauged Basins: Approaches for Canada’s Cold Regions, C. Spence, J. W. Pomeroy, and A. Pietroniro, Eds., Canadian Water Resources Association, 139–164.
Sorooshian, S., Hsu K. , Gao X. , Gupta H. V. , Imam B. , and Braithwaite D. , 2000: Evaluation of PERSIANN system satellite-based estimates of tropical rainfall. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 81 , 2035–2046.
Su, F., Adam J. C. , Bowling L. C. , and Lettenmaier D. P. , 2005: Streamflow simulations of the terrestrial Arctic domain. J. Geophys. Res., 110 .D08112, doi:10.1029/2004JD005518.
Su, F., Adam J. C. , Trenberth K. E. , and Lettenmaier D. P. , 2006: Evaluation of surface water fluxes of the pan-Arctic land region with a land surface model and ERA-40 reanalysis. J. Geophys. Res., 111 .D05110, doi:10.1029/2005JD006387.
Susskind, J., Piraino P. , Rokke L. , Iredell L. , and Mehta A. , 1997: Characteristics of the TOVS Pathfinder A dataset. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78 , 1449–1472.
Tang, Q., Oki T. , and Kanae S. , 2006: A distributed biosphere hydrological model (DBHM) for large river basin. Ann. J. Hydraul. Eng. JSCE, 50 , 37–42.
Troccoli, A., and Kallberg P. , 2004: Precipitation correction in the ERA-40 reanalysis. ERA-40 Project Rep. Series, Vol. 13, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, United Kingdom, 10 pp.
Uppala, S. M., and Coauthors, 2005: The ERA-40 re-analysis. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 131 , 2961–3012.
Willmott, C., and Matsuura K. , 2001: Terrestrial air temperature and precipitation: Monthly and annual time series (1950–1999) (version 1.02). Center for Climate Research, University of Delaware, Newark, DE. [Available online at http://climate.geog.udel.edu/~climate/html_pages/archive.html.].
Xie, P., and Arkin P. A. , 1997: Global precipitation: A 17-year monthly analysis based on gauge observations, satellite estimates, and numerical model outputs. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78 , 2539–2558.
APPENDIX
Detailed Analysis for Large Basins with Each Continent
Annual 1997–99 precipitation, simulated runoff, evapotranspiration, soil moisture, and SWE for several basins, in mm, in (a) the Russian and Asian parts of Eurasia, (b) North and South America, (c) Africa, and (d) Europe and Middle East.
Annual precipitation (mm), simulated runoff (mm), evapotranspiration (mm), soil moisture (mm), and SWE (mm) and corresponding relative differences in percent relative to A2006 (bold), and relative to GPCP 1DD (italic) for the nine primary basins.
Relative differences in percent of annual discharge: relative to A2006 (bold), GPCP 1DD (italic), and relative to GRDC observations (italic and bold). The GRDC monthly discharges have been computed based on the entire available record in order to have some overlap with the 1997–99 period.
Annual average water balance components over the continents for ERA-40, GPCP 1DD, and A2006 (mm). The quantity R/P is the ratio of runoff to precipitation. Correlation (seasonality) is the 1997–99 monthly correlation expressing the seasonality in precipitation between ERA-40 and A2006, GPCP 1DD and A2006, and ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD (bold). Correlation (month) is the monthly correlation expressing the monthly precipitation anomalies. Entries in italic are unitless.
Comparison of water balance (mm yr−1) over global land areas [excluding Greenland and Antarctica; adapted from Maurer et al. (2000)].
Daily RMSD and intermittency agreement between 1997–August 2002 ERA-40 and GPCP 1DD.