I'm now working on the effect of climate change on regional agricultural hydrology processes by using hydrological model. I do know that the CMIP5 data (especailly air temperature, precipitation and et al.) should perform statistical downscaling before driving the model. The NCEP/NCAR and ECMWF (https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/derived-near-surface-meteorological-variables?tab=overview) reanalysis data have different resolution. Does anyone know the differences, advantages and disadvantages in detail when using the reanalysis data to drive hydrological model ?
this article may help you:
Article Validation of ECMWF and NCEP-NCAR reanalysis data in Antarctica
All reanalysis are different because their model is different. I think that it is not possible to say one is better than another, though a reanalysis may be more accurate than another for a specific region.
In my experience, I can say that ERA5 (from ECMWF) is better at representing atmospheric processes in Argentina. But this may change for another region.
Also, you can consider a third reanalysis, the Japanese reanalysis (https://jra.kishou.go.jp/JRA-55/index_en.html).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change