## 3 Results  
### Evaluation of ERA5 and ERA-Interim Reanalyses  
The performance of ERA5 and ERA-Interim precipitation and SW\({}_{\text{in}}\) is assessed by comparing reanalyses with the in situ measurements described earlier. The statistical scores for 2010-2016 daily precipitation from ERA5 and ERA-Interim with respect to 134 gauge stations spanning all over BF are shown in Table 2. The Median R, ubRMSD, bias, and RMSD values for the total monthly precipitation time series along with their 95% confidence interval are \(0.82\pm 0.009,52.02\pm 1.39\) mm/month, \(-15.00\)\(\pm\) 3.27 mm/month, and 56.15 \(\pm\) 3.60 mm/month for ERA5, and 0.77 \(\pm\) 0.010, 58.44 \(\pm\) 1.42 mm/month, \(-19.85\)\(\pm\) 3.77 mm/month, and \(63.89\pm 3.25\) mm/month for ERA-Interim. These results demonstrate the ability of ERA5 reanalysis to better represent precipitation variability than ERA-Interim. ERA5 performs better than ERA-Interim for 84% of the precipitation gauging stations for R values, 89% for ubRMSD values, 83% for bias values, and 86% for RMSD values. This is also illustrated by the maps in Figure 3, where triangle (circle) symbols indicate stations where ERA5 performs better (worse) than ERA-Interim in terms of R (Figure 3a) and ubRMSD (Figure 2b). Overall, triangle symbols dominate the two maps of Figure 3, which implies that ERA5 precipitation reanalyses are in better agreement with in situ observations than ERA-Interim over BF. Precipitation from ERA-interim or ERA5 are both closer to in situ observations in the northern (lower ubRMSD values) than in the southern part of the domain. Overall, ERA5 performs better than ERA-Interim, likely due to an improved representation of convective precipitation in the tropical region [70] and to the larger number of assimilated data; it is also possibly related to its higher spatial resolution. The statistical scores for the 2010-2016 daily mean surface SWin from ERA5 and ERA-Interim with respect to four stations (see Figure 4) are shown in Table 2. Median R, ubRMSD, bias, and RMSD values along with their 95% confidence interval are 0.59 \(\pm\) 0.07, 36.23 \(\pm\) 6.48 W/m\({}^{2}\), 19.40 \(\pm\) 32.43 W/m\({}^{2}\), and 42.24 \(\pm\) 21.76 W/m\({}^{2}\) for ERA5, and 0.46 \(\pm\) 0.15, 41.03 \(\pm\) 4.22 W/m\({}^{2}\), 28.12 \(\pm\) 29.80 W/m\({}^{2}\), and 50.72 \(\pm\) 18.63 W/m\({}^{2}\) for ERA-Interim. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline  & **Median b/MSD 1 on Precipitation Time Series** & **Median bias 1 on Precipitation Time Series** & **Median RMSD 1 on Precipitation Time Series** & **Median RMSD 1 on Precipitation Time** \\  & **Series in (m/month and Incoming Solar** & **Incoming Solar** & **Incoming Solar** & **Series (m/month) and Incoming Solar** \\  & **F\% of Stations for Which This** & **Radiation in w-w** [2.9], **\% Confidence** & **Radiation in w-w** [2.9], **\% Confidence** \\  & **Configuration in the Best** & **Interval 2\({}^{\circ}\) of Stations for Which This** & **Interval 1\({}^{\circ}\) of Stations for Which This** & **Interval 1\({}^{\circ}\) of Stations for Which This** \\  & **Configuration in the Best** & **Configuration in the Best** & **Configuration in the Best** \\ \hline ERAS & 0.82 \(\pm\) 0.009 (84\%) & 52.02 \(\pm\) 1.39 (99\%) & \(-\)15.00 \(\pm\) 3.27 (83\%) & 56.15 \(\pm\) 3.80 (86\%) \\ (repetition) & 0.77 \(\pm\) 0.010 (16\%) & 58.44 \(\pm\) 1.42 (11\%) & \(-\)19.88 \(\pm\) 3.77 (17\%) & 63.89 \(\pm\) 3.25 (14\%) \\ \hline ERAS & 0.99 \(\pm\) 0.07 (100\%) & 36.23 \(\pm\) 6.48 (100\%) & 19.40 \(\pm\) 3.24 (100\%) & 42.24 \(\pm\) 2.76 (100\%) \\ (Incoming solar radiation) & 0.46 \(\pm\) 0.15 (9\%) & 41.03 \(\pm\) 4.22 (9\%) & 28.12 \(\pm\) 29.80 (9\%) & 50.72 \(\pm\) 18.63 (8\%) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison of precipitation and incoming solar radiation forcing with in situ observations for ERAS and ERA-Interim over the period of 2010-2016 (based on monthly sum). Scores are given for significant correlations with \(p\)-values \(<\) 0.05.