dorsal/arxiv
View SchemaDoes the Danube exist? Versions of reality given by various regional climate models and climatological datasets
| Authors | Valerio Lucarini, Robert Danihlik, Ida Kriegerova, Antonio Speranza |
|---|---|
| Categories | |
| ArXiv ID | physics/0612222 |
| URL | https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612222 |
| DOI | 10.1029/2006JD008360 |
| Journal | J. Geophys. Res., 112, D13103 (2007) |
Abstract
We present an intercomparison and verification analysis of several regional climate models (RCMs) nested into the same run of the same Atmospheric Global Circulation Model (AGCM) regarding their representation of the statistical properties of the hydrological balance of the Danube river basin for 1961-1990. We also consider the datasets produced by the driving AGCM, from the ECMWF and NCEP-NCAR reanalyses. The hydrological balance is computed by integrating the precipitation and evaporation fields over the area of interest. Large discrepancies exist among RCMs for the monthly climatology as well as for the mean and variability of the annual balances, and only few datasets are consistent with the observed discharge values of the Danube at its Delta, even if the driving AGCM provides itself an excellent estimate. Since the considered approach relies on the mass conservation principle and bypasses the details of the air-land interface modeling, we propose that the atmospheric components of RCMs still face difficulties in representing the water balance even on a relatively large scale. Their reliability on smaller river basins may be even more problematic. Moreover, since for some models the hydrological balance estimates obtained with the runoff fields do not agree with those obtained via precipitation and evaporation, some deficiencies of the land models are also apparent. NCEP-NCAR and ERA-40 reanalyses result to be largely inadequate for representing the hydrology of the Danube river basin, both for the reconstruction of the long-term averages and of the seasonal cycle, and cannot in any sense be used as verification. We suggest that these results should be carefully considered in the perspective of auditing climate models and assessing their ability to simulate future climate changes.
{
"annotation_id": "ff96e2ed-c0f9-4f09-b536-5749b1d11763",
"date_created": "2026-03-02T18:01:14.805000Z",
"date_modified": "2026-03-02T18:01:14.805000Z",
"file_hash": "50bcfe1fe739a9293a31ea57b99f16ebecddc210e3ed5c726a5839e02d6b2ca1",
"private": false,
"record": {
"abstract": "We present an intercomparison and verification analysis of several regional\nclimate models (RCMs) nested into the same run of the same Atmospheric Global\nCirculation Model (AGCM) regarding their representation of the statistical\nproperties of the hydrological balance of the Danube river basin for 1961-1990.\nWe also consider the datasets produced by the driving AGCM, from the ECMWF and\nNCEP-NCAR reanalyses. The hydrological balance is computed by integrating the\nprecipitation and evaporation fields over the area of interest. Large\ndiscrepancies exist among RCMs for the monthly climatology as well as for the\nmean and variability of the annual balances, and only few datasets are\nconsistent with the observed discharge values of the Danube at its Delta, even\nif the driving AGCM provides itself an excellent estimate. Since the considered\napproach relies on the mass conservation principle and bypasses the details of\nthe air-land interface modeling, we propose that the atmospheric components of\nRCMs still face difficulties in representing the water balance even on a\nrelatively large scale. Their reliability on smaller river basins may be even\nmore problematic. Moreover, since for some models the hydrological balance\nestimates obtained with the runoff fields do not agree with those obtained via\nprecipitation and evaporation, some deficiencies of the land models are also\napparent. NCEP-NCAR and ERA-40 reanalyses result to be largely inadequate for\nrepresenting the hydrology of the Danube river basin, both for the\nreconstruction of the long-term averages and of the seasonal cycle, and cannot\nin any sense be used as verification. We suggest that these results should be\ncarefully considered in the perspective of auditing climate models and\nassessing their ability to simulate future climate changes.",
"arxiv_id": "physics/0612222",
"authors": [
"Valerio Lucarini",
"Robert Danihlik",
"Ida Kriegerova",
"Antonio Speranza"
],
"categories": [
"physics.ao-ph",
"physics.data-an",
"physics.geo-ph",
"physics.soc-ph"
],
"doi": "10.1029/2006JD008360",
"journal_ref": "J. Geophys. Res., 112, D13103 (2007)",
"title": "Does the Danube exist? Versions of reality given by various regional climate models and climatological datasets",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612222"
},
"schema_id": "dorsal/arxiv",
"source": {
"execution_id": "96d679e0-259b-403b-a86e-c61af514fcea",
"id": "arXiv Dataset IDs",
"type": "Model",
"variant": "snapshot-2026-03-01",
"version": "0.1.0"
},
"user_id": 1000002
}