Articles | Volume 16, issue 22
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6531-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6531-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Model evaluation paper
| 
15 Nov 2023
Model evaluation paper |
| 15 Nov 2023
| 15 Nov 2023
Evaluating 3 decades of precipitation in the Upper Colorado River basin from a high-resolution regional climate model
William Rudisill
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Department of Geosciences, Boise State University, 1295 West University Drive, Boise, ID 83706, USA
Alejandro Flores
Department of Geosciences, Boise State University, 1295 West University Drive, Boise, ID 83706, USA
Rosemary Carroll
Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512, USA
Related authors
William Rudisill, Dan Feldman, Adrienne Marshall, and Arielle Koshkin
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-935, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-935, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for The Cryosphere (TC).
Short summary
Short summary
Surface hoar crystals grow on top of snowpacks overnight. Little work has focused on climatic conditions leading to surface hoar. We use data from three field campaigns in the Colorado Rockies to investigate. We show that surface hoar events decline as the climate warms, and that there may be 14 % fewer events per year in the future. There is still work needed to reconcile measured amounts of surface hoar crystals, models, and the relationship with turbulent air.
William Rudisill, Dan Feldman, Adrienne Marshall, and Arielle Koshkin
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-935, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-935, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for The Cryosphere (TC).
Short summary
Short summary
Surface hoar crystals grow on top of snowpacks overnight. Little work has focused on climatic conditions leading to surface hoar. We use data from three field campaigns in the Colorado Rockies to investigate. We show that surface hoar events decline as the climate warms, and that there may be 14 % fewer events per year in the future. There is still work needed to reconcile measured amounts of surface hoar crystals, models, and the relationship with turbulent air.
Lena Wang, Sharon A. Billings, Li Li, Daniel R. Hirmas, Keira Johnson, Devon Kerins, Julio Pachon, Curtis Beutler, Karla M. Jarecke, Vaishnavi Varikuti, Micah Unruh, Hoori Ajami, Holly Barnard, Alejandro N. Flores, Kenneth Williams, and Pamela L. Sullivan
Biogeosciences, 22, 6097–6117, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-6097-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-6097-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our study looked at how different forest types and conditions affected soil microbes and soil carbon and stability. Aspen organic matter led to higher microbial activity, smaller soil aggregates, and more stable soil carbon, possibly reducing dissolved organic carbon movement from hillslopes to streams. This shows the importance of models like the Microbial Efficiency – Matrix Stabilization framework for predicting CO2 release, soil carbon stability, and carbon movement.
Kachinga Silwimba, Alejandro N. Flores, Irene Cionni, Sharon A. Billings, Pamela L. Sullivan, Hoori Ajami, Daniel R. Hirmas, and Li Li
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 7707–7734, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-7707-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-7707-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Land models need reliable soil properties to simulate water, but these settings are uncertain. We analyzed Community Land Model version 5 simulations for the United States from 1980 to 2010 to see how different soil settings shape patterns of soil moisture. Compared with an independent global land dataset, patterns align in many regions but differ in water-limited areas such as the Great Plains. Our maps show where to improve settings and guide future tests with observations.
Rainey Aberle, Ellyn Enderlin, Shad O'Neel, Caitlyn Florentine, Louis Sass, Adam Dickson, Hans-Peter Marshall, and Alejandro Flores
The Cryosphere, 19, 1675–1693, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-1675-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-1675-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Tracking seasonal snow on glaciers is critical for understanding glacier health. Yet previous work has not directly compared machine learning algorithms for snow classification across satellite image products. To address this, we developed a new automated workflow for tracking seasonal snow on glaciers using several image products and machine learning models. Applying this method can help provide insights into glacier health, water resources, and the effects of climate change on snow cover.
Karun Pandit, Hamid Dashti, Andrew T. Hudak, Nancy F. Glenn, Alejandro N. Flores, and Douglas J. Shinneman
Biogeosciences, 18, 2027–2045, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2027-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2027-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
A dynamic global vegetation model, Ecosystem Demography (EDv2.2), is used to understand spatiotemporal dynamics of a semi-arid shrub ecosystem under alternative fire regimes. Multi-decadal point simulations suggest shrub dominance for a non-fire scenario and a contrasting phase of shrub and C3 grass growth for a fire scenario. Regional gross primary productivity (GPP) simulations indicate moderate agreement with MODIS GPP and a GPP reduction in fire-affected areas before showing some recovery.
Cited articles
Anderson, E. A.: National Weather Service River Forecast System: Snow Accumulation and Ablation Model, U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, 1973. a
Araghi, A., Jaghargh, M. R., Maghrebi, M., Martinez, C. J., Fraisse, C. W., Olesen, J. E., and Hoogenboom, G.: Investigation of satellite-related precipitation products for modeling of rainfed wheat production systems, Agric. Water Manage., 258, 107222, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107222, 2021. a
Arsenault, R., Brissette, F., and Martel, J.-L.: The hazards of split-sample validation in hydrological model calibration, J. Hydrol., 566, 346–362, 2018. a
Ashouri, H., Hsu, K.-L., Sorooshian, S., Braithwaite, D. K., Knapp, K. R., Dewayne Cecil, L., Nelson, B. R., and Prat, O. P.: PERSIANN-CDR: Daily Precipitation Climate Data Record from Multisatellite Observations for Hydrological and Climate Studies, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96, 69–83, 2015. a
Boise State's Research Computing Department: R2: Dell HPC Intel E5v4 (High Performance Computing Cluster). Boise, ID: Boise State University, https://doi.org/10.18122/B2S41H, 2017. a
Carroll, R. W. H., Deems, J. S., Niswonger, R., Schumer, R., and Williams, K. H.: The importance of interflow to groundwater recharge in a snowmelt-dominated headwater basin, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 5899–5908, 2019. a
Carroll, R. W. H., Gochis, D., and Williams, K. H.: Efficiency of the summer monsoon in generating streamflow within a snow-dominated headwater basin of the Colorado river, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL090856, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090856, 2020. a
Chen, D., Dai, A., and Hall, A.: The convective-to-total precipitation ratio and the “drizzling” bias in climate models, J. Geophys. Res., 126, e2020JD034198, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD034198, 2021. a
Clark, M. P., Slater, A. G., Rupp, D. E., Woods, R. A., Vrugt, J. A., Gupta, H. V., Wagener, T., and Hay, L. E.: Framework for Understanding Structural Errors (FUSE): A modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HYDROLOGICAL MODELS, Water Resour. Res., 44, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006735, 2008. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k
Climate Data Gateway at NCAR: Gridded Ensemble Precipitation and Temperature Estimates over the Contiguous United States Version 2.0, NCAR [data set], https://doi.org/10.5065/D6TH8JR2, 2018. a
Currier, W. R., Thorson, T., and Lundquist, J. D.: Independent Evaluation of Frozen Precipitation from WRF and PRISM in the Olympic Mountains, J. Hydrometeorol., 18, 2681–2703, 2017. a
Dai, A.: Precipitation Characteristics in Eighteen Coupled Climate Models, J. Climate, 19, 4605–4630, 2006. a
de Boer, G., White, A., Cifelli, R., Intrieri, J., Hughes, M., Mahoney, K., Meyers, T., Lantz, K., Hamilton, J., Currier, W., Sedlar, J., Cox, C., Hulm, E., Riihimaki, L. D., Adler, B., Bianco, L., Morales, A., Wilczak, J., Elston, J., Stachura, M., Jackson, D., Morris, S., Chandrasekar, V., Biswas, S., Schmatz, B., Junyent, F., Reithel, J., Smith, E., Schloesser, K., Kochendorfer, J., Meyers, M., Gallagher, M., Longenecker, J., Olheiser, C., Bytheway, J., Moore, B., Calmer, R., Shupe, M. D., Butterworth, B., Heflin, S., Palladino, R., Feldman, D., Williams, K., Pinto, J., Osborn, J.,Costa, D., Hall, E., Herrera, C., Hodges, G., Soldo, L., Stierle, S., and Webb, R. S.: Supporting Advancement in Weather and Water Prediction in the Upper Colorado River Basin: The SPLASH Campaign, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 1, E1853–E1874, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0147.1, 2023. a
DeCicco, L., Hirsch, R., Lorenz, D., Watkins, D., and Johnson, M.: dataRetrieval: R packages for discovering and retrieving water data available from U.S. federal hydrologic web services, 2.7.13, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA [code], https://doi.org/10.5066/P9X4L3GE, 2023. a
Deems, J. S., Painter, T. H., and Finnegan, D. C.: Lidar measurement of snow depth: a review, J. Glaciol., 59, 467–479, 2013. a
Feldman, D., Boos, A. A. W., Chandrasekar, R. C. V., Collis, W. C. S., De Mott, J. D. P., Flores, J. F. A., Harrington, D. G. J., Kumijian LR Leung, M., Raleigh, T. O. M., Mc Kenzie Skiles J Smith R Sullivan, A. R. S., Varble, P. U. A., and Williams, K.: Surface Atmosphere Integrated Field Laboratory (SAIL) Science Plan Tech. Rep. No. DOE/SC-ARM-21-004, Tech. Rep. DOE/SC-ARM-21-004, U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research Program, USA, 2021. a
Fick, S. E. and Hijmans, R. J.: WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas, Int. J. Climatol., 37, 4302–4315, 2017. a
Goergen, K. and Kollet, S.: Boundary condition and oceanic impacts on the atmospheric water balance in limited area climate model ensembles, Sci. Rep., 11, 6228, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85744-y, 2021. a
Goodison, B. E., Louie, P. Y. T., and Yang, D.: WMO solid precipitation measurement intercomparison, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 212 pp., 1998. a
Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K., and Martinez, G. F.: Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling, J. Hydrol., 377, 80–91, 2009. a
Hamon W. R.: Estimating Potential Evapotranspiration, J. Hydr Eng. Div.-ASCE, 87, 107–120, 1961. a
Harpold, A. A., Kaplan, M. L., Klos, P. Z., Link, T., McNamara, J. P., Rajagopal, S., Schumer, R., and Steele, C. M.: Rain or snow: hydrologic processes, observations, prediction, and research needs, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1–22, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-1-2017, 2017. a
Hubbard, S. S., Williams, K. H., Agarwal, D., Banfield, J., Beller, H., Bouskill, N., Brodie, E., Carroll, R., Dafflon, B., Dwivedi, D., Falco, N., Faybishenko, B., Maxwell, R., Nico, P., Steefel, C., Steltzer, H., Tokunaga, T., Tran, P. A., Wainwright, H., and Varadharajan, C.: The East River, Colorado, watershed: A mountainous community testbed for improving predictive understanding of multiscale hydrological–biogeochemical dynamics, Vadose Zone J., 17, 1–25, 2018. a, b
Hughes, M., Lundquist, J. D., and Henn, B.: Dynamical downscaling improves upon gridded precipitation products in the Sierra Nevada, California, Clim. Dynam., 55, 111–129, 2020. a
Immerzeel, W. W., Pellicciotti, F., and Shrestha, A. B.: Glaciers as a proxy to quantify the spatial distribution of precipitation in the Hunza basin, Mt. Res. Dev., 32, 30–38, 2012. a
Immerzeel, W. W., Lutz, A. F., Andrade, M., Bahl, A., Biemans, H., Bolch, T., Hyde, S., Brumby, S., Davies, B. J., Elmore, A. C., Emmer, A., Feng, M., Fernández, A., Haritashya, U., Kargel, J. S., Koppes, M., Kraaijenbrink, P. D. A., Kulkarni, A. V., Mayewski, P. A., Nepal, S., Pacheco, P., Painter, T. H., Pellicciotti, F., Rajaram, H., Rupper, S., Sinisalo, A., Shrestha, A. B., Viviroli, D., Wada, Y., Xiao, C., Yao, T., and Baillie, J. E. M.: Importance and vulnerability of the world's water towers, Nature, 577, 364–369, 2020. a
Janić, Z. I.: Nonsingular implementation of the Mellor-Yamada level 2.5 scheme in the NCEP Meso model, Tech. rep., National Centers for Environmental Prediction Office, USA, 2001. a
Kirchner, J. W.: Catchments as simple dynamical systems: Catchment characterization, rainfall-runoff modeling, and doing hydrology backward: CATCHMENTS AS SIMPLE DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS, Water Resour. Res., 45, W02429, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008wr006912, 2009. a
Kirchner, P. B., Bales, R. C., Molotch, N. P., Flanagan, J., and Guo, Q.: LiDAR measurement of seasonal snow accumulation along an elevation gradient in the southern Sierra Nevada, California, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 4261–4275, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-4261-2014, 2014. a, b
Koskela, J. J., Croke, B. W. F., Koivusalo, H., Jakeman, A. J., and Kokkonen, T.: Bayesian inference of uncertainties in precipitation-streamflow modeling in a snow affected catchment, Water Resour. Res., 48, W11513, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011773, 2012. a
Lettenmaier, D. P., Alsdorf, D., Dozier, J., Huffman, G. J., Pan, M., and Wood, E. F.: Inroads of remote sensing into hydrologic science during the WRR era, Water Resour. Res., 51, 7309–7342, 2015. a
Lin, Y. and Mitchell, K. E.: 1.2 the NCEP stage II/IV hourly precipitation analyses: Development and applications, in: Proceedings of the 19th Conference Hydrology, American Meteorological Society, 9–13 January 2005, San Diego, CA, USA, vol. 10, Citeseer, 2005. a
Liston, G. E. and Elder, K.: A Meteorological Distribution System for High-Resolution Terrestrial Modeling (MicroMet), J. Hydrometeorol., 7, 217–234, 2006. a
Liu, C., Ikeda, K., Rasmussen, R., Barlage, M., Newman, A. J., Prein, A. F., Chen, F., Chen, L., Clark, M., Dai, A., Dudhia, J., Eidhammer, T., Gochis, D., Gutmann, E., Kurkute, S., Li, Y., Thompson, G., and Yates, D.: Continental-scale convection-permitting modeling of the current and future climate of North America, Clim. Dynam., 49, 71–95, 2017. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j
Lute, A. C. and Abatzoglou, J. T.: Best practices for estimating near-surface air temperature lapse rates, Int. J. Climatol., 41, E110–E125, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6668, 2021.
Maddox, R. A., Zhang, J., Gourley, J. J., and Howard, K. W.: Weather Radar Coverage over the Contiguous United States, Weather Forecast., 17, 927–934, 2002. a
Maina, F. Z., Siirila-Woodburn, E. R., and Vahmani, P.: Sensitivity of meteorological-forcing resolution on hydrologic variables, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 3451–3474, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-3451-2020, 2020. a
Maraun, D., Wetterhall, F., Ireson, A. M., Chandler, R. E., Kendon, E. J., Widmann, M., Brienen, S., Rust, H. W., Sauter, T., Themeßl, M., Venema, V. K. C., Chun, K. P., Goodess, C. M., Jones, R. G., Onof, C., Vrac, M., and Thiele-Eich, I.: Precipitation downscaling under climate change: Recent developments to bridge the gap between dynamical models and the end user, Rev. Geophys., 48, RG3003, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009RG000314, 2010. a, b
Monin, A. S. and Obukhov, A. M.: Osnovnye zakonomernosti turbulentnogo peremeshivanija v prizemnom sloe atmosfery (Basic laws of turbulent mixing in the atmosphere near the ground), Trudy geofiz. inst. AN SSSR, 24, 163–187, 1954. a
Mountain Research Initiative Edw Working Group, Pepin, N., Bradley, R. S., Diaz, H. F., Baraer, M., Caceres, E. B., Forsythe, N., Fowler, H., Greenwood, G., Hashmi, M. Z., Liu, X. D., Miller, J. R., Ning, L., Ohmura, A., Palazzi, E., Rangwala, I., Schöner, W., Severskiy, I., Shahgedanova, M., Wang, M. B., Williamson, S. N., and Yang, D. Q.: Elevation-dependent warming in mountain regions of the world, Nat. Clim. Change, 5, 424–430, 2015. a
Newman, A. J., Clark, M. P., Craig, J., Nijssen, B., Wood, A., Gutmann, E., Mizukami, N., Brekke, L., and Arnold, J. R.: Gridded Ensemble Precipitation and Temperature Estimates for the Contiguous United States, J. Hydrometeorol., 16, 2481–2500, 2015. a
Niu, G.-Y., Yang, Z.-L., Mitchell, K. E., Chen, F., Ek, M. B., Barlage, M., Kumar, A., Manning, K., Niyogi, D., Rosero, E., Tewari, M., and Xia, Y.: The community Noah land surface model with multiparameterization options (Noah-MP): 1. Model description and evaluation with local-scale measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 116, 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015139, 2011. a
NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory: Livneh daily CONUS near-surface gridded meteorological and derived hydrometeorological data, NOAA PSL, Boulder, Colorado, USA [data set], https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.livneh.html last access: 1 January 2021. a
Oyler, J. W., Dobrowski, S. Z., Ballantyne, A. P., Klene, A. E., and Running, S. W.: Artificial amplification of warming trends across the mountains of the western United States, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 153–161, 2015. a
Painter, T.: ASO L4 Lidar Snow Depth 50m UTM Grid, Version 1, Boulder, Colorado USA, NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center [data set], https://doi.org/10.5067/STOT5I0U1WVI, 2018. a
Painter, T. H., Berisford, D. F., Boardman, J. W., Bormann, K. J., Deems, J. S., Gehrke, F., Hedrick, A., Joyce, M., Laidlaw, R., Marks, D., Mattmann, C., McGurk, B., Ramirez, P., Richardson, M., Skiles, S. M., Seidel, F. C., and Winstral, A.: The Airborne Snow Observatory: Fusion of scanning lidar, imaging spectrometer, and physically-based modeling for mapping snow water equivalent and snow albedo, Remote Sens. Environ., 184, 139–152, 2016. a, b
Pan, M. and Wood, E. F.: Inverse streamflow routing, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 4577–4588, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-4577-2013, 2013. a
Powers, J. G., Klemp, J. B., Skamarock, W. C., Davis, C. A., Dudhia, J., Gill, D. O., Coen, J. L., Gochis, D. J., Ahmadov, R., Peckham, S. E., Grell, G. A., Michalakes, J., Trahan, S., Benjamin, S. G., Alexander, C. R., Dimego, G. J., Wang, W., Schwartz, C. S., Romine, G. S., Liu, Z., Snyder, C., Chen, F., Barlage, M. J., Yu, W., and Duda, M. G.: The Weather Research and Forecasting Model: Overview, System Efforts, and Future Directions, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 98, 1717–1737, 2017. a
PRISM Climate Group: PRISM Climate Data, PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University [data set], https://prism.oregonstate.edu, last access: 1 January 2021. a
Raleigh, M. S., Lundquist, J. D., and Clark, M. P.: Exploring the impact of forcing error characteristics on physically based snow simulations within a global sensitivity analysis framework, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 3153–3179, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3153-2015, 2015. a
Rasmussen, R. and Liu, C.: High Resolution WRF Simulations of the Current and Future Climate of North America, Research Data Archive at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Computational and Information Systems Laboratory, https://doi.org/10.5065/D6V40SXP, 2017. a, b
Rasmussen, R., Liu, C., Ikeda, K., Gochis, D., Yates, D., Chen, F., Tewari, M., Barlage, M., Dudhia, J., Yu, W., Miller, K., Arsenault, K., Grubišić, V., Thompson, G., and Gutmann, E.: High-Resolution Coupled Climate Runoff Simulations of Seasonal Snowfall over Colorado: A Process Study of Current and Warmer Climate, J. Climate, 24, 3015–3048, 2011. a, b, c
Rasmussen, R. M., Bernstein, B. C., Murakami, M., Stossmeister, G., Reisner, J., and Stankov, B.: The 1990 Valentine's Day Arctic Outbreak. Part I: Mesoscale and Microscale Structure and Evolution of a Colorado Front Range Shallow Upslope Cloud, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 34, 1481–1511, 1995. a
Rudisill, W.: bsu-wrudisill/precipitation_inference_publish: pre-release, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7702749, 2023a. a, b
Rudisill, W.: bsu-wrudisill/WRF-Run: first release pt 2 (v.0.1), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10058594, 2023b. a
Rudisill, W.: bsu-wrudisill/NRCSSnotel-Downloader: 1st Release (v1.0.0), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8045105, 2023c. a
Rudisill, W., Vincent, A., Nash, C., and Flores, A.: Dynamically Downscaled (WRF) 1 km, Hourly Meteorological Conditions 1987–2020. East/Taylor Watersheds. Science Area 1: Standard Award: Model-Data Fusion to Examine Multiscale Dynamical Controls on Snow Cover and Critical Zone Moisture Inputs, ESS-DIVE repository [data set], https://doi.org/10.15485/1845448, 2022. a, b
Ryken, A., Gochis, D., and Maxwell, R. M.: Unraveling groundwater contributions to evapotranspiration and constraining water fluxes in a high-elevation catchment, Hydrol. Process., e14449, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14449, 2021. a
Saha, S., Moorthi, S., Pan, H.-L., Wu, X., Wang, J., Nadiga, S., Tripp, P., Kistler, R., Woollen, J., Behringer, D., Liu, H., Stokes, D., Grumbine, R., Gayno, G., Wang, J., Hou, Y.-T., Chuang, H.-Y., Juang, H.-M. H., Sela, J., Iredell, M., Treadon, R., Kleist, D., Van Delst, P., Keyser, D., Derber, J., Ek, M., Meng, J., Wei, H., Yang, R., Lord, S., van den Dool, H., Kumar, A., Wang, W., Long, C., Chelliah, M., Xue, Y., Huang, B., Schemm, J.-K., Ebisuzaki, W., Lin, R., Xie, P., Chen, M., Zhou, S., Higgins, W., Zou, C.-Z., Liu, Q., Chen, Y., Han, Y., Cucurull, L., Reynolds, R. W., Rutledge, G., and Goldberg, M.: The NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 91, 1015–1058, 2010. a, b, c, d, e, f
Saha, S., Moorthi, S., Wu, X., Wang, J., Nadiga, S., Tripp, P., Behringer, D., Hou, Y.-T., Chuang, H.-Y., Iredell, M., Ek, M., Meng, J., Yang, R., Mendez, M. P., van den Dool, H., Zhang, Q., Wang, W., Chen, M., and Becker, E.: The NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2, J. Climate, 27, 2185–2208, 2014. a, b
Salvatier, J., Wiecki, T. V., and Fonnesbeck, C.: Probabilistic programming in Python using PyMC3, PeerJ Comput. Sci., 2, e55, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.55, 2016. a, b
Serreze, M. C., Clark, M. P., Armstrong, R. L., McGinnis, D. A., and Pulwarty, R. S.: Characteristics of the western United States snowpack from snowpack telemetry (SNOTEL) data, Water Resour. Res., 35, 2145–2160, 1999. a
Siirila-Woodburn, E. R., Rhoades, A. M., Hatchett, B. J., Huning, L. S., Szinai, J., Tague, C., Nico, P. S., Feldman, D. R., Jones, A. D., Collins, W. D., and Kaatz, L.: A low-to-no snow future and its impacts on water resources in the western United States, Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 2, 800–819, 2021. a
Skamarock, W. C., Klemp, J. B., Dudhia, J., Gill, D. O., Barker, D. M., Duda, M. G., Huang, X.-Y., Wang, W., and Powers, J. G.: G.: A description of the Advanced Research WRF version 3, in: NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-475+STR, National Center for Atmospheric Research; Boulder, Colorado, USA, 2008. a
Sun, N., Yan, H., Wigmosta, M. S., Leung, L. R., Skaggs, R., and Hou, Z.: Regional snow parameters estimation for large-domain hydrological applications in the western United States, J. Geophys. Res., 124, 5296–5313, 2019. a
Thompson, G., Field, P. R., Rasmussen, R. M., and Hall, W. D.: Explicit Forecasts of Winter Precipitation Using an Improved Bulk Microphysics Scheme. Part II: Implementation of a New Snow Parameterization, Mon. Weather Rev., 136, 5095–5115, 2008. a
Thornton, P. E., Thornton, M. M., Mayer, B. W., Wei, Y., Devarakonda, R., Vose, R. S., and Cook, R. B.: Daymet: daily surface weather data on a 1-km grid for North America, version 3. ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA, in: USDA-NASS, 2019. 2017 Census of Agriculture, Summary and State Data, Geographic Area Series, Part 51, AC-17-A-51, ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA, https://daac.ornl.gov (last access: 31 October 2023), 2016. a
Thyer, M., Renard, B., Kavetski, D., Kuczera, G., Franks, S. W., and Srikanthan, S.: Critical evaluation of parameter consistency and predictive uncertainty in hydrological modeling: A case study using Bayesian total error analysis, Water Resour. Res., 45, 22, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR006825, 2009. a, b, c
Tillman, F. D., Day, N. K., Miller, M. P., Miller, O. L., Rumsey, C. A., Wise, D. R., Longley, P. C., and McDonnell, M. C.: A Review of Current Capabilities and Science Gaps in Water Supply Data, Modeling, and Trends for Water Availability Assessments in the Upper Colorado River Basin, Water, 14, 3813, https://doi.org/10.3390/w14233813, 022. a
Tran, A. P., Rungee, J., Faybishenko, B., Dafflon, B., and Hubbard, S. S.: Assessment of Spatiotemporal Variability of Evapotranspiration and Its Governing Factors in a Mountainous Watershed, Water, 11, 243, https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020243, 2019. a, b
Trenberth, K. E., Dai, A., Rasmussen, R. M., and Parsons, D. B.: The Changing Character of Precipitation, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 84, 1205–1218, 2003. a
Valery, A., Andréassian, V., and Perrin, C.: Inverting the hydrological cycle: when streamflow measurements help assess altitudinal precipitation gradients in mountain areas, IAHS Publishing. Location: Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK, https://iahs.info/uploads/dms/14842.41-281-286-333-28-3967--VALERY-Corr.pdf, last access: 2021-4-20, 2009. a
Vögeli, C., Lehning, M., Wever, N., and Bavay, M.: Scaling Precipitation Input to Spatially Distributed Hydrological Models by Measured Snow Distribution, Front Earth Sci. Chin., 4, 108, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2016.00108, 2016. a
Weisman, M. L., Skamarock, W. C., and Klemp, J. B.: The Resolution Dependence of Explicitly Modeled Convective Systems, Mon. Weather Rev., 125, 527–548, 1997. a
Wrzesien, M. L., Pavelsky, T. M., Durand, M. T., Dozier, J., and Lundquist, J. D.: Characterizing biases in mountain snow accumulation from global data sets, Water Resour. Res., 55, 9873–9891, 2019. a
Xu, Z., Siirila-Woodburn, E. R., Rhoades, A. M., and Feldman, D.: Sensitivities of subgrid-scale physics schemes, meteorological forcing, and topographic radiation in atmosphere-through-bedrock integrated process models: a case study in the Upper Colorado River basin, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1771–1789, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1771-2023, 2023. a
Short summary
It is important to know how well atmospheric models do in mountains, but there are not very many weather stations. We evaluate rain and snow from a model from 1987–2020 in the Upper Colorado River basin against the available data. The model works rather well, but there are still some uncertainties in remote locations. We then use snow maps collected by aircraft, streamflow measurements, and some advanced statistics to help identify how well the model works in ways we could not do before.
It is important to know how well atmospheric models do in mountains, but there are not very many...
