4.5 Article

A Comparison of in Situ, Reanalysis, and Satellite Water Budgets over the Upper Colorado River Basin

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROMETEOROLOGY
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 888-905

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/JHM-D-12-0119.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. NOAA National Integrated Drought Information System

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using in situ, reanalysis, and satellite-derived datasets, surface and atmospheric water budgets of the Upper Colorado River basin are analyzed. All datasets capture the seasonal cycle for each water budget component. For precipitation, all products capture the interannual variability, though reanalyses tend to overestimate in situ while satellite-derived precipitation underestimates. Most products capture the interannual variability of evapotranspiration (ET), though magnitudes differ among the products. Variability and magnitude among storage volume change products widely vary. With regards to the surface water budget, the strongest connections exist among precipitation, ET, and soil moisture, while snow water equivalent (SWE) is best correlated with runoff. Using in situ precipitation estimates, the Max Planck Institute (MPI) ET estimates, and accumulated runoff, changes in storage are calculated and compare well with estimated changes in storage calculated using SWE, reservoir, and the Climate Prediction Center's soil moisture. Using in situ precipitation estimates, MPI ET estimates, and atmospheric divergence estimates from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Interim Re-Analysis (ERA-Interim) results in a long-term atmospheric storage change estimate of -73mm. Long-term surface storage estimates combined with long-term runoff come close to balancing with long-term atmospheric convergence from ERA-Interim. Increasing the MPI ET by 5% leads to a better balance between surface storage changes, runoff, and atmospheric convergence. It also brings long-term atmospheric storage changes to a better balance at +13 mm.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据