Complementing ERA5 and E-OBS20 with high resolution river discharge
Authors: Hagemann Stefan , Stacke Tobias 
Published: March 2020

&lt;p&gt;The 0.5&amp;#176; resolution of many global observational datasets is not sufficient for the requirements of current state-of-the-art regional climate model (RCM) simulations over Europe. Here, the ERA5 reanalysis of the ECMWF (C3S 2017) and E-OBS data (Cornes et al. 2018) are frequently used as reference datasets when RCM results are evaluated on resolutions higher than 0.5&amp;#176;. In addition, ERA5 data are also commonly used to force regional ocean models. As ERA data do not comprise river discharges, the lateral forcing of freshwater inflow from land is taken from other data sources, such as station data, runoff climatologies, etc. However, these data are not necessarily consistent with the ERA5 forcing over the ocean surface. If such data are derived from station data, they are only available for specific rivers and not spatially homogeneously distributed for all coastal areas. In addition, they might not be representative for the river mouth if the respective station location is too far away from the river mouth, which is often the case.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In order to allow a consistent forcing of river discharges and evaluation of simulated hydrological fluxes, we extended ERA5 and E-OBS v20.0e with high resolution river discharge. This also allows a consistent assessment of hydrological changes from these two datasets. The discharge was simulated with the recently developed 5 Min. version of the Hydrological discharge (HD) model (Hagemann et al., submitted). Note that for the development of this HD model version, no river specific parameter adjustments were conducted so that the HD model is generally applicable for climate change studies and over ungauged catchments.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The HD model requires gridded fields of surface and subsurface runoff as input with a daily temporal resolution or higher. As no large-scale observations of these variables exist, they need to be calculated by a land surface scheme or hydrology model using observed or re-analyzed meteorological data. Here, we used the HydroPy global hydrological model, which is the successor of the MPI-HM model (Stacke and Hagemann 2012). The latter has contributed to the WATCH Water Model Intercomparison Project (WaterMIP; Haddeland et al. 2011) and the inter-sectoral impact model intercomparison project (ISIMIP; Warszawski et al. 2014). Note that ERA5 also comprises archived fields of surface and subsurface runoff, but it turned out that its separation of total runoff is not suitable to generate adequate river discharges with the HD model. In our presentation, we evaluate the simulated discharge using various metrics and consider significant discharge trends over Europe.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;References&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;C3S (2017): ERA5: Fifth generation of ECMWF atmospheric reanalyses of the global climate. Copernicus Climate Change Service Climate Data Store (CDS)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cornes, R., et al. (2018) J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 123, doi:10.1029/2017JD028200&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Haddeland, I., et al. (2011). J. Hydrometeorol. 12, doi: 10.1175/2011jhm1324.1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hagemann, S., T. Stacke and H. Ho-Hagemann, High resolution discharge simulations over Europe and the Baltic Sea catchment. Frontiers in Earth Sci., submitted.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Stacke, T. and Hagemann, S. (2012). Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 16, doi: 10.5194/hess-16-2915-2012&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Warszawski, L., et al. (2014) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1312330110&lt;/p&gt;