<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">HESS</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Hydrology and Earth System Sciences</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">HESS</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1607-7938</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/hess-22-1391-2018</article-id><title-group><article-title>Scenario approach for the seasonal forecast of Kharif flows <?xmltex \hack{\break}?> from the Upper Indus
Basin</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Scenario approach for the seasonal forecast of UIB Kharif flows}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{M.~F.~Ismail and W.~Bogacki}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Ismail</surname><given-names>Muhammad Fraz</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Bogacki</surname><given-names>Wolfgang</given-names></name>
          <email>bogacki@hs-koblenz.de</email>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department  of Civil, Geo and  Environmental  Engineering,  Technical University of Munich, <?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Munich, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Department of Civil Engineering, Koblenz University of Applied Sciences, Koblenz, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Wolfgang Bogacki (bogacki@hs-koblenz.de)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>26</day><month>February</month><year>2018</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>22</volume>
      <issue>2</issue>
      <fpage>1391</fpage><lpage>1409</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>28</day><month>March</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>4</day><month>April</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>7</day><month>December</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>21</day><month>December</month><year>2017</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        
        
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018.html">This article is available from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract>
    <p id="d1e97">Snow and glacial melt runoff are the major sources of water
contribution from the high mountainous terrain of the Indus River upstream of the
Tarbela reservoir. A reliable forecast of seasonal water availability for the
Kharif cropping season (April–September) can pave the way towards better
water management and a subsequent boost in the agro-economy of Pakistan.
The use of degree-day models in conjunction with satellite-based remote-sensing
data for the forecasting of seasonal snow and ice melt runoff has
proved to be a suitable approach for data-scarce regions. In the present
research, the Snowmelt Runoff Model (SRM) has not only been enhanced by
incorporating the “glacier (G)” component but also applied for the forecast
of seasonal water availability from the Upper Indus Basin (UIB). Excel-based
SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G takes account of separate degree-day factors for snow and
glacier melt processes. All-year simulation runs with SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G for the period
2003–2014 result in an average flow component distribution of 53,
21, and 26 % for snow, glacier, and rain, respectively. The UIB has been
divided into Upper and Lower parts because of the different climatic
conditions in the Tibetan Plateau. The scenario approach for seasonal
forecasting, which like the Ensemble Streamflow Prediction method uses historic
meteorology as model forcings, has proven to be adequate for long-term water
availability forecasts. The accuracy of the forecast with a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 9.5 %
could be slightly improved compared to two existing operational forecasts for
the UIB, and the bias could be reduced to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.0 %. However, the association
between forecasts and observations as well as the skill in predicting extreme
conditions is rather weak for all three models, which motivates further
research on the selection of a subset of ensemble members according to
forecasted seasonal anomalies.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

      <?xmltex \hack{\allowdisplaybreaks}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e130">Mountains are the water towers of the world. They are the biggest resource
of freshwater to half of the world's population fulfilling their needs for
irrigation, industry, domestic and hydropower applications (Viviroli et al., 2007). The
Indus River on which Pakistan's socio-economic development depends, can be
termed as the bread basket of Pakistan (Clarke, 2015). Due to an agrarian
economy, Pakistan's agriculture share in water usage is about 97 %, which
is well above the global average of about 70 % (Akram, 2009). In Pakistan,
the Indus River System Authority (IRSA) decides the provincial water shares
according to the Water Apportionment Accord (WAA) of 1991 and provincial
irrigation departments subsequently determine the seasonal water allocation
to the different canal command areas depending upon the water availability
forecast carried out at the end of March for the forthcoming Kharif cropping
season (April–September). A reliable seasonal forecast of the water
availability from snow and glacial melt is therefore of utmost importance
for agricultural production and efficient water management.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e135">Map of the Upper Indus Basin (UIB) showing different elevations and
splitting of the UIB at the Kharmong gauging station into Upper and Lower UIB.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018-f01.jpg"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e144">On the other hand, snowmelt runoff modelling in mountainous regions faces
the challenge of data scarcity as well as the uncertainty in parameter
calibration (Pellicciotti et al., 2012). The need of the hour is to not only
develop such a hydrological model which has the capability to cater for both
snow and glacial melt components but also a reliable forecast technique which
could help water managers and policy makers to enhance water
resources management in the future. The present paper focuses on the
implementation of the Snowmelt Runoff Model (SRM) including the glacier melt
component (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G) based on the methodology proposed by Schaper et al. (1999),
which is an important value addition to the existing ExcelSRM version
(Bogacki and Hashmi, 2013) of the WinSRM (Martinec et al., 2011) model. In the
earlier studies on the Upper Indus Basin (UIB) and its sub-catchments, e.g.
Immerzeel et al. (2010a), Tahir et al. (2011), Butt and Bilal (2011), and
Adnan et al. (2016), they have only used the SRM standard version, while glaciers are
dealt with by taking them as a part of the snow covered area. The underestimation of
flows in periods associated with the glacier melt contribution, as pointed out by
Tahir et al. (2011), has now been dealt with by incorporation of a glacier
melt component. A unique methodology has been adopted to deal with the early
fading of snow cover area from the Tibetan Plateau by separating the whole
UIB into two sub-catchments, which is not implemented in the original WinSRM model.</p>
      <p id="d1e154">Ensemble Streamflow Prediction (ESP), developed at the U.S. National Weather
Service (Day, 1985), is widely used to generate probabilistic long-term
stream-flow forecasts. As already successfully applied in the Upper Jhelum
basin (Bogacki and Ismail, 2016), a scenario approach is used for seasonal
flow forecasting in the UIB, which has much similarity to ESP. It also uses
historical meteorology as model forcings; however, like the other operational
forecast models for UIB, it is mainly focussed on a deterministic forecast
of total Kharif inflow to the Tarbela reservoir.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e160">Monthly distribution of inflows to the Tarbela Reservoir from
2000–2015.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=384.112205pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018-f02.png"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Materials and methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Study area</title>
      <p id="d1e180">The upper catchments of the Indus River basin (Fig. 1) primarily feed the
Tarbela reservoir, which is the larger of the only two major reservoirs in
Pakistan. The UIB has an area of about 173 345 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, of
which approx. 11.5 % is covered by perennial glacial ice (Tahir et al.,
2011). At the end of most winters, nearly the entire UIB above 2200 m a.s.l.
is covered with snow, resulting in more than 60 % of annual flow in the Upper
Indus River to originate from snowmelt (Bookhagen and Burbank, 2010).
The distribution of monthly inflows into the Tarbela reservoir (see Fig. 2)
shows that these flows tend to rise progressively as melting temperatures
advance into areas of higher snowpack at the higher elevations. The Indus River
starts rising gradually in March reaching its maximum in July, while peak
flood events usually occur during the monsoon season during July–September.
By the end of July, the flows reduce due to the diminished snow cover in the
lower catchment and glacier melt becomes an important flow component in the late summer months.
This is due to the first melting of their seasonal snow cover
and, when the snow has vanished, melting of the glacier ice.
According to Tahir et al. (2011), glacial melt dominates the flows of the largest
tributaries of the Indus River, i.e. the Chitral, Gilgit, Hunza, Braldu, and Shyok
rivers.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Model structure</title>
      <p id="d1e198">The Snowmelt Runoff Model (SRM; Martinec, 1975) is a semi-distributed,
lumped temperature-index model which is specifically designed to simulate
the runoff in snow-dominated catchments that has been successfully applied
in more than one hundred snow-driven basins around the globe (Martinec et al.,
2011). Input variables of the SRM are daily values of air temperature,
precipitation, and snow covered area. The catchment is usually subdivided
into elevation zones of about 500 m each and the input variables are
distributed accordingly. The total daily amount of water produced from
snowmelt and rainfall in the catchment is superimposed on the calculated
recession flow according to Eq. (1):<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><?xmltex \hack{\noindent}?>

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M6" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced open="{" close="}"><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">86</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">400</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E1"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the average daily discharge (m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are the daily
runoff depths originating from snowmelt and rainfall (cm d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
total area of the elevation zone (km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the recession coefficient
(–), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the index of the simulation day, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are the indices and total
number of elevation zones, respectively. Daily runoff from snowmelt and
rainfall is calculated by Eqs. (2) and (3):

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M19" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E2"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E3"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">R</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the runoff coefficients (–) for snowmelt and
rain, respectively, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the degree-day factor for snow
(cm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> the degree-days (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C d) for each elevation
zone, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> the ratio of the snow covered area to the total area (–), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
daily precipitation (cm d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e657">Hypsometric curves and the distribution of area under 500 m
elevation bands for the Upper and Lower UIB. Eleven and seven
elevation zones were made for the Lower and Upper UIB, respectively, and the elevation of the
weather stations in the western portion of the UIB are presented on the right
hand side <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-axis.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e673">Schaper et al. (1999) introduced an enhancement in the original SRM
approach by incorporating the separate glacial melt component in the model.
In addition to the variables used by SRM, it also considers the area covered
by exposed glaciers, i.e. not snow covered. An additional melt component is
added to Eq. (1) that takes into account the specific degree-day
factors for glaciers according to Eq. (4):

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M32" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the daily melt (cm d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) from exposed glaciers in each
elevation zone, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the runoff coefficient (–), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
degree-day factor (cm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) for glaciers, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the ratio of the exposed glacier area to the total area (–).</p>
      <p id="d1e829">This model was tested in several basins and was found to be highly accurate even in
basins with 67 % glacier area. The three alpine basins were Rhine-Felsberg,
Rhône-Sion, and Ticino-Bellinzona in Switzerland (Schaper and Seidel,
2000). Apart from the improvement in the runoff modelling, the independent
computation of glacier melt is an important step towards evaluations of
glacier behaviour with regard to climate change.</p>
      <p id="d1e833">The glacier melt component according to Eq. (4) was incorporated into
the existing ExcelSRM (further referred to as SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G). This extension
requires the glacier exposed area as an additional daily input variable and
respective model parameters as given in Eq. (4).</p>
      <p id="d1e843">An additional enhancement is the possibility to split the watershed into
different sub-catchments. This feature is realised by adding the
pre-calculated outflow of a sub-catchment obtained by a separate simulation
to the discharge of the downstream sub-catchment. The travel time can be
considered by applying a time lag to the daily discharge time series.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Splitting the UIB into two sub-catchments</title>
      <p id="d1e852">In the Karakorum–Western-Himalayas region, snow accumulates during winter
and reaches its maximum extent in February or March. Higher altitudes
typically have a 90–100 % snow cover that stays more or less
constant until melting starts in spring. There is, however, a characteristic
bias between the north-western part of the UIB, where at altitudes above
4000 m a.s.l. the snow covered area usually starts gradually decreasing in
March, and the south-eastern part, namely the Tibetan Plateau, where at the
same altitudes snow cover is fading away rapidly.
This bias leads to an inevitable underestimation in forecasting the snowmelt-dominated
early Kharif flows (see Sect. 3.1), which motivates the splitting of the UIB into
two sub-catchments.</p>
      <p id="d1e855">Ideally, the catchment should be split directly downstream of the Tibetan Plateau.
However, because the first gauging station where daily flow data were
available is the Kharmong gauging station (when the Upper Indus River has
entered into Pakistan), this location was chosen to split the UIB into
upstream and downstream sub-catchments (namely the Upper and Lower UIB; Fig. 1).
The hypsometric characteristics including the number of
elevation zones and their corresponding areas of both sub-catchments are
shown in Fig. 3.</p>
      <p id="d1e858">According to the two sub-catchments, two separate SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G models were
created. For each simulation, first the Upper UIB model is run in order to
simulate flows at Kharmong. These flows are then superimposed onto the flows
calculated by the Lower UIB model using a time lag between Kharmong and
Tarbela that was estimated by Kirpich (Eq. 5; Kirpich, 1940; USDA,
2010).

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M43" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.00195</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.77</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.385</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          In this empirical equation, the time of concentration <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (min) is only
related to the length of the main channel <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (m) and the slope of the longest
hydraulic length <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (–). Given the altitudes of Kharmong and Darband (upstream Tarbela reservoir) gauging stations as 2542 and 436 m a.s.l., respectively,
and a channel length<fn id="Ch1.Footn1"><p id="d1e918">Digitised from Esri's World Imagery. Sources:
Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid,
IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS user community</p></fn> of about 617 km, the
approximated time lag of 5000 min was finally rounded to 3 days.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <title>Data sources</title>
      <p id="d1e928">There are a number of high-elevation climate stations in the Pakistani part
of the UIB operated by WAPDA's<fn id="Ch1.Footn2"><p id="d1e931">Pakistan Water and
Power Development Authority</p></fn> Glacier Monitoring and Research Centre (GMRC)
and the Pakistan Meteorological Department (PMD). However, they are concentrated
on the western part of the UIB and data is not available online. In order to
have the most recent data for operational flow forecasting, the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) climate station at Srinagar airport
located at an altitude of 1587 m a.s.l.  was chosen as temperature base
station, which already had proven to give representative temperatures for
that region in the SRM model of the Upper Jhelum catchment (Bogacki and
Ismail, 2016) and a full set of climatic data can be obtained online from
the GSOD<fn id="Ch1.Footn3"><p id="d1e935">Global Summary Of the Day. Download at <uri>ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/gsod/</uri></p></fn>
database with a time lag of
about 2 days only. Based on the daily air temperature data, degree-days in
each elevation zone were calculated using a constant temperature lapse rate
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e969">The MODIS/Terra Snow Cover Daily L3 Global 500 m Grid (MOD10A1)
product<fn id="Ch1.Footn4"><p id="d1e972">Hall et al. (2006), updated daily. MODIS/Terra Snow Cover
Daily L3 Global 500m Grid V005, (February 2000–September 2016, tiles h23v05
&amp; h24v05). NSIDC Boulder, Colorado, USA. Download at
<uri>https://n5eil01u.ecs.nsidc.org/MOST/MOD10A1.005</uri>.</p></fn> has been used to
determine the daily snow covered area in the elevation zones. The
compatibility of using MODIS data in conjunction with SRM in the Himalayas
and its surroundings has already been investigated by Immerzeel et al. (2009,
2010b). As the MODIS sensor cannot detect snow below clouds, a cloud
elimination algorithm is applied using temporal interpolation between two
cloud-free days for each pixel. Afterwards the daily percentage of snow cover
area in each elevation zone is calculated and smoothed by moving average.</p>
      <p id="d1e979">At the beginning of the melting season, glaciers are usually completely
covered by fresh snow. As the melting season progresses, the snow cover will
fade away and glacier exposed area will increase. The actual glacier extent
was derived from two data sources. As a major source on global glacier
distribution, the Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS) data
archive was used (Raup et al., 2007). This data was complemented by
interpretation of Landsat 8 scenes (30 m spatial resolution) from late
summer to early fall 2013, in order to identify the maximum of the glacier
exposed area. The merged data were mapped on the 500 m MODIS grid. On a daily
basis, the glacier exposed area is determined by all pixels that are
classified as glacier but not identified as snow by the MODIS sensor.</p>
      <p id="d1e982">A spatial interpolation of in situ (station) precipitation data in
mountainous regions is particularly difficult and often biased towards lower
values (Archer and Fowler, 2004) as the rain gauge network is usually sparse
and mainly located at the valley floors, while maximum precipitation occurs
on mountain slopes and increases with altitude in general. A promising
alternative to station data are gridded, remote-sensing-based precipitation
products. However, regional and temporal patterns as well as multiannual
means of these products differ significantly in the Himalayas (Palazzi et
al., 2013). In particular, the widely used TRMM dataset is known to
underestimate the precipitation at high altitudes, as found in the UIB
(Forsythe et al., 2011) or the Andes (Ward et al., 2011).</p>
      <p id="d1e986">Based on our own precipitation product comparisons for the Upper Chenab
catchment, the gridded RFE 2.0 central Asia<fn id="Ch1.Footn5"><p id="d1e989">RainFall Estimates
version 2.0 created by the NOAA Climate Prediction Center's FEWS-NET group
sponsored by USAID. Download at <uri>ftp://ftp.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/fews/afghan</uri></p></fn> daily rainfall product (Xie
et al., 2002) is used in the present model. According to SRM's elevation
band approach, the gridded data, having a spatial resolution of
0.1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> latitude and longitude, is mapped to the respective elevation
zones. For the period 2003–2015, the product yields a mean annual
precipitation of 854 and 482 mm year<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for the Lower and the Upper UIB,
respectively, which reflects the significantly lower annual precipitation on
the Tibetan Plateau compared to the western Himalayas (e.g. Bookhagen and
Burbank, 2010; Ménégoz et al., 2013). The RFE basin-wide annual mean
of 701 mm year<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> lies well in the range of 675 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 mm year<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> derived for the
whole UIB by Reggiani and Rientjes (2015).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1051">Zone-wise melting start threshold temperatures and time-dependent
degree-day factors for the Lower UIB.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="9">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col9" align="center">Elevation zone (m a.s.l.) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2500</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2500–3000</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3000–3500</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">3500–4000</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4000–4500</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4500–5000</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">5000–5500</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">&gt; 5500</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">th</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">9.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">1.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Days after</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">melting start</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.20</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.21</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.22</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.22</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.19</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.18</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.18</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.20</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">20</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.30</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.32</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.32</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.32</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.30</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.31</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.31</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.33</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">30</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.39</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.43</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.41</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.43</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.41</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.43</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.44</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.46</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">40</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.48</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.53</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.51</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.54</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.52</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.56</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.57</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.59</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">50</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.57</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.64</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.61</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.65</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.63</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.68</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.70</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.72</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">60</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.67</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.75</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.70</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.74</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">0.80</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">70</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e1054"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> 10-day average temperature in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C in each elevation
zone.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1463">Zone-wise melting start threshold temperatures and time-dependent
degree-day factors for the Upper UIB.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col8" align="center">Elevation zone (m a.s.l.) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3000–3500</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3500–4000</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4000–4500</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4500–5000</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">5000–5500</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">&gt; 5500</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">th</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Days after</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">melting start</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.37</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.35</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.35</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.52</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.56</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.48</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">20</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.43</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.40</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.40</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.59</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.64</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.54</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.70</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">30</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.49</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.45</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.46</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.66</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.73</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.80</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">40</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.54</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.51</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.51</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.73</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">50</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.60</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.56</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.56</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">60</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.66</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.61</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.62</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">70</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.71</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.66</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.67</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e1466"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> 10-day average temperature in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C in each elevation zone.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <title>Model parameters</title>
      <p id="d1e1835">The most important parameter of a temperature-index model that is
controlling daily snow and glacial melt is the degree-day factor (cm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>),
which transforms the index variable
degree-day (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C d) into actual melt (cm d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1894">Increase in degree-day factors with time
after start of melting for
elevation zones 7 and 8 for the Lower UIB. Degree-day factors are obtained by
diagnostic calibration.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=441.017717pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1905">Increase in degree-day
factors with time after start of melting for elevation zones 5
and 6 for the Upper UIB. Degree-day factors are obtained by diagnostic
calibration.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=441.017717pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1915">In the case of glaciers, a constant degree-day factor of
0.70 cm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, as proposed by Schaper et al. (2000),
was chosen, which also corresponds to degree-day factors reported from
glaciers in the Himalayas at a comparable latitude (Hock, 2003). The approach
for degree-day factors for snow is more elaborate. In the first step, optimal degree-day factors were
obtained for each elevation zone and year by diagnostic calibration, i.e. by
achieving the best possible fit between simulated and observed hydrographs
for each year. From this calibration exercise, it appears that degree-day
factors are increasing by the time melting has started in a particular
elevation zone (Figs. 4 and 5). Because a generalised rule is needed in the
forecasting procedure, zone-wise degree-day factor functions, as suggested by
Ismail et al. (2015), were developed by linear regression between the
calibrated degree-day factors and time. The increase in the degree-day
factors with the passage of time is because the snow absorbs energy due to
physical conditions such as increasing temperatures and solar radiation
intensities. This process of energy storage plays a pivotal role in the
ripening of the snowpack, which melts rapidly as the snow melting season
progresses. The extent to which degree-day factors increase is related to the
calibration procedure because it was observed during the model calibration
that in a certain elevation zone when the degree-day factors attain a certain
value, e.g (0.80 cm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
the snow cover area in that very elevation zone has
almost completely faded away so there is no advantage in further
increasing the values of degree-day
factors. The limit of the degree-day factors increase at a certain
spatio-temporal region depends upon various physiographic and climatic
parameters and research is on-going to evaluate
the trend of degree-day factors in response to the aforementioned
parameters.</p>
      <p id="d1e1988">The start of snowmelt and the corresponding application of the developed
degree-day factor generalised rule is correlated with a certain threshold
temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">th</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) for each elevation zone
(see Tables 1 and 2). The other model parameters required by SRM like
temperature lapse rate, recession coefficient, runoff coefficient for snow,
lag time, etc., were applied basin-wide and kept constant for all years (see
Table 3). The values of these parameters were determined according to the
methods described by Martinec et al. (2011) and slightly adjusted to achieve
a good fit over the whole calibration period. It has to be noted that these
parameter values will differ for other catchments.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e2005">SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G model parameters for both the Upper and Lower UIB.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="justify" colwidth="71.13189pt"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parameters</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Symbol</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Value</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Units</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Remarks</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Temperature lapse rate</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">6.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Recession coefficient</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.193</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">October–February</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.060</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">March–September</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.029</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">October–February</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.020</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">March–September</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Critical precipitation</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">cm</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">constant</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Lag time</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">54</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">h</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2.5 days delay <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>between melt and  <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>runoff at Tarbela</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Critical temperature</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">crit</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.5–3.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">variable</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Rainfall contributing area</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">RCA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">November–March</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">April–October</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Runoff coefficient – snow</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">constant</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Runoff coefficient – glacier</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.70</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">constant</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Runoff coefficient – rain</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">R</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.25–0.75</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Degree-day factor – snow</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.15–0.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">cm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Degree-day factor – glacier</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.70</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">cm <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">constant</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS6">
  <title>Scenario approach for forecasting</title>
      <p id="d1e2505">In the forecasting period which starts from  1 April, the four model variables temperature,
precipitation, snow covered area, and glacier exposed area have to be
predicted for the forthcoming 6 months of the Kharif cropping season
(April–September). As the level of skill of seasonal climate forecasts for
the Hindukush–Karakoram–Western-Himalaya region for such a lead time is
still not sufficient, a scenario approach already successfully applied in the
Upper Jhelum catchment (Bogacki and Ismail, 2016) is used.</p>
      <p id="d1e2508">This scenario approach has a lot in common with traditional ESP methods
(developed at the U.S. National Weather Service as
a method for generating long-term probabilistic streamflow outlooks; Day,
1985). Based on the assumption that past meteorology is representative of
possible future events, ESP uses historical temperature and precipitation
time series as forcings for the hydrological model to produce an ensemble of
streamflow traces. A probabilistic forecast is created by statistical
analysis of the multiple streamflow scenarios produced (Franz et al., 2008).
Initial basin conditions are usually estimated by forcing the hydrological
model with observed meteorology in a “warm-up” phase up to the time of
forecast (Wood and Lettenmaier, 2008).</p>
      <p id="d1e2511">The seasonal scenario approach also uses historical temperature and
precipitation as forcings for the SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G model. In contrast to ESP, however,
this approach is, like the other operational forecast models for the UIB,
primarily focussed on a deterministic forecast of total Kharif flow volume.
Besides the “most likely” (median) flow, SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G forecasts only give an
indication of the bandwidth of expected flows by the dry (20 %) and wet
(80 %) quantiles as limits of the “likely” range.</p>
      <p id="d1e2528">The other notable differences are the initial basin conditions. SRM and
SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G do not use any initial conditions, like soil moisture state of
snow-water equivalent as used in other hydrological models. Instead, however,
the snow cover area and the glacier exposed area are input variables to the
model. For reasons of simplicity, the glacier exposed area is treated like
the meteorological variables, i.e. the historical time series are used. However,
the depletion of the snow covered area during the forecast period, which is the
decisive factor for each forecast, is predicted by so-called “modified
depletion curves”. These modified depletion curves are derived from the
conventional depletion curves of each elevation zone by replacing the
timescale with the cumulative daily snowmelt depth (Martinec et al., 2011).
The decline of the modified depletion curves depends on the initial
accumulation of snow and represents the actual snow-water equivalent. When
initial snow depth is low, the modified depletion curve declines faster than
in years when a lot of snow has accumulated. At the end of March, when the
seasonal forecast is carried out, an elevation zone already showing some
decline in snow covered area, and hence having also some cumulated
degree-days, is chosen as a “key zone”. Comparing the
relationship of decline in snow covered area versus cumulated degree-days with
a statistical analysis of the modified depletion curves of previous years,
the actual amount of snow is estimated and the future depletion anticipated
accordingly, while assuming similar snow conditions for all elevation zones.</p>
      <p id="d1e2539">The ESP approach usually has the advantage that errors in the initial
conditions are progressively superseded by the meteorological forcings.
In SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G, however,
if an erroneous depletion estimate is in effect, then it will
persist during the whole forecast period. As all ensemble traces are based
on the chosen depletion curves, the initial estimate is crucially
influencing each trace of the ensemble in the same direction.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS7">
  <title>Verification methods</title>
      <p id="d1e2555">Model verification comprises the simulation model as well as the forecasting
model. The accuracy of the simulation model was evaluated by the two
standard criteria used in the SRM (Martinec et al., 2011), namely the relative
volume difference Eq. (6)

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M102" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          and the coefficient of determination <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Eq. (7)

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E7" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M104" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the observed and the simulated annual flow
volumes,<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>∗</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the observed and the simulated
daily discharge values, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is the average observed daily
discharge.</p>
      <p id="d1e2742">The skill of the forecasting model was assessed in comparison with IRSA's
forecasts that are based on a statistical model and with forecasts from the
UBC<fn id="Ch1.Footn6"><p id="d1e2745">University of British Columbia Watershed Model.</p></fn> watershed
model (Quick and Pipes, 1977) that is used by WAPDA's Glacier Monitoring
Research Centre. The set of verification metrics was chosen taking into
account that the existing operational forecasts for Kharif flows are
traditionally issued in the form of deterministic forecasts, thus only the `most
likely' values forecasted by these models are available.</p>
      <p id="d1e2749">The accuracy of a forecast is a measure of the error between predicted and
observed values. The root mean squared error (RMSE; Eq. 8), mean
percentage error (MPE; Eq. 9), and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE; Eq. 10)
were used as deterministic metrics to assess the accuracy of the predicted
mean Kharif flow volumes.

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M110" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E8"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RMSE</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E9"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MPE</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E10"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">MAPE</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">|</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">|</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            In the above equations, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the forecasted
and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the observed flow volume, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> the total number of considered
forecasts. Both, RMSE and MAPE measure the average magnitude of the forecast
errors, where RMSE penalises larger errors more than MAPE. The mean
percentage error measures the deviation between average forecasted and
average observed flows, i.e. a positive MPE indicates over-forecasting and a
negative under-forecasting.</p>
      <p id="d1e2951">As a commonly used deterministic measure of association, the correlation
coefficient, Eq. (11), was applied to assess the correspondence between forecasted and observed
values.

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E11" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M114" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          In addition, the uncentered anomaly correlation AC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (Eq. 12; Wilks, 2006) was used as another measure of association.

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E12" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M116" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">AC</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is the climatological average value. The anomaly correlation is designed to measure
similarities in the patterns of anomalies from the climatological average
between forecasted and observed values. An AC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.6 is usually regarded
as an indication of some forecasting skill (Wilks, 2006). In the present
context, the climatology average <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is equivalent to the average
observed flows <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e3259">The ability of a non-probabilistic forecast to predict extreme conditions is
usually assessed by defining discrete categories like below normal, normal,
and above normal. The Heidke and Peirce skill scores for multi-categorical
forecasts measure the fraction of correct forecasts in each category in
relation to those forecasts which would be correct due purely to random
chance. The Peirce skill score, Eq. (13),

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E13" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M121" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PSS</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          is unbiased in the sense that it assigns a marginal distribution to the
reference random forecast which is equal to the (sample) climatology (Wilks,
2006). In the above equation, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the number of categories, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
the joint distribution of forecasts and observations, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the respective marginal distributions.</p>
      <p id="d1e3436">As the existing operational forecasts are primarily designed as point
estimates of the mean flow volume and hence a comparison of probabilistic
metrics between these models is not possible, only a basic probabilistic
evaluation of the SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G scenario ensembles was carried out. The ranked
probability score RPS was used, which is essentially an extension of the Brier score
to the many-event situation (Wilks, 2006). It reflects the
overall performance of a multi-category probabilistic forecast (Franz et
al., 2003). In order to calculate the RPS, first the quantiles of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
categories have to be determined based on given non-exceedance probabilities
of the observed values. Then, for each forecast, the ensemble members as well
as the observed flow are assigned to these categories and the respective
cumulative distributions, Eq. (14), are calculated

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E14" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M128" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>O</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the cumulative ensemble distribution of
forecast <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the relative frequency of an ensemble member
falling into category <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. For each forecast <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, there is only one observation
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, hence the category <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> the observation falling in is given a relative
frequency of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> while all others are set to 0.
Finally, the RPS (Eq. 15) for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> forecasts is the average of the sum of
the squared differences in the cumulative distributions.

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M138" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E15"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RPS</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mfenced open="{" close="}"><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mfenced></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            The RPS penalises forecasts more severely when their probabilities are
further from the actual observations. The relative improvement or skill of a
probability forecast over climatology as a reference forecast is assessed by
the ranked probability skill score (RPSS; Eq. 16)

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E16" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M139" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RPSS</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RPS</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RPS</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ref</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where RPS<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ref</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is the RPS calculated with a constant forecast, e.g. the
average of the observed series.</p>
      <p id="d1e3766">Besides the RPSS as a single-number score for the forecast performance, the
reliability diagram (Wilks, 2006) is used to show the full joint distribution
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mfenced><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>of forecasts and observations of a binary
predictand in terms of its calibration–refinement factorisation (Murphy
and Winkler, 1987)

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E17" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M142" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">|</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi>j</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> conditional distributions <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">|</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
specify how often each possible observation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> occurred when the
particular forecast <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was issued, or in other words how well each
forecast <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is calibrated. Forecasts <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that fall near to the 1 : 1
line in the reliability diagram result in a small (good) reliability term of
the algebraic decomposition of the Brier score (Murphy, 1973), which is the
weighted average of the squared vertical distances.</p>
      <p id="d1e3948">The other part of the above factorisation is the unconditional (marginal)
distribution <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that specifies how often each of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> possible
forecast values occurred. This so-called refinement distribution is
visualised by a probability histogram that is also referred to as a sharpness
diagram. A distribution with a large spread indicates that different
forecasts are issued relatively frequently, and so have the potential to
discern a broad range of conditions. Conversely, a narrow distribution, i.e.
if most of the forecasts <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the same or in a similar range,
indicates a lack of sharpness (Wilks, 2006).</p>
      <p id="d1e3986">While the calibration–refinement factorisation relates to a binary
predictand, the SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G scenario forecasts are grouped into three categories:
less than normal, near normal (most likely), and higher than normal.
According to Murphy (1972), this <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-state situation is handled as a collection
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <italic>scalar</italic> forecasts, thus treating each category as a separate binary
forecast <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that either meets or does not meet the observation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results and discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e4049">The development of the SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G forecasting model for the UIB has been an
iterative process with the focus on creating an operational forecasting tool
for Kharif flow volumes to the Tarbela reservoir. Thus, not all improvements
have been tested individually while not changing the other components, which
would allow an independent assessment of the individual effects.
Nevertheless, the results are discussed below separately for each component.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e4061">Snow cover variation in the months of March (Left) and April (Right) 2003
in UIB.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018-f06.png"/>

      </fig>

<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Splitting of the UIB catchment</title>
      <p id="d1e4075">While the simulation results using a sole model for the whole UIB showed an
acceptable agreement between simulated and observed flows in terms of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, initial hindcast results proved to be unsatisfactory,
especially for the early Kharif (1 April–10 June) season,
which is the major snowmelt contribution period. The mean percentage error
MPE between hindcasts and observations of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>21.0 % for the years 2003–2014
indicated a severe bias towards underestimating the actual flows and
the respective MAPE of 25.9 % was also
unexpectedly large.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T4"><caption><p id="d1e4110">Percentage depletion of snow cover area for the Upper and Lower UIB during March
2003.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Elevation</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3500</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4000</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4500</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">5000</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5500</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">&gt; 5500</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(m a.s.l.)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col7" align="center">1 March 2003 </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Lower UIB</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">66 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">82 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">88 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">87 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">83 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">94 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Upper UIB</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">58 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">79 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">58 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">51 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">58 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">71 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col7" align="center">1 April 2003 </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Lower UIB</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">42 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">71 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">84 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">84 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">78 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">92 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Upper UIB</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">24 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">50 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">48 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">43 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">51 %</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">73 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e4296">An analysis of MODIS snow cover data indicates that in the south-eastern
part of the UIB, namely the Tibetan Plateau, already in March the snow cover
is fading away rapidly. On the other hand, in the north-western part of
the catchment, the same elevation zone is still widely covered with snow
(Fig. 6). In Table 4 the snow cover area of the relevant elevation zones
for the south-eastern (Upper) and north-western (Lower) part of the UIB is
given on 1 March and 1 April as an example for the year 2003.
While at an elevation of 4000 m a.s.l.  the snow cover area reduces from
82  to 71 % in the Lower UIB, in the Upper UIB the snow cover area
shrinks sharply from 79  to 50 %. A similar behaviour can be observed
for most of the other years as well.</p>
      <p id="d1e4299">As in forecasting mode, the depletion of the snow cover area during the whole
forecasting period is predicted depending on the reduction in the “key
zone” in March (see Sect. 2.6). The relatively larger depletion in the Upper
UIB leads to an underestimation of the available snow-water equivalent for
the whole catchment, which explains the subsequent underestimation of early
Kharif flows by the initial hindcasts and in turn motivates the splitting of
the UIB into two sub-catchments and separate models (see Sect. 2.3). As a
result of this splitting, the MPE of the hindcasts for early
Kharif changed to a modest overestimation of 4.2 %, while the MAPE could be
reduced to 15.8 %.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e4305">Monthly distributions of flow components (snow, rain, and glacier) in the UIB.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=284.527559pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Glacier melt component</title>
      <p id="d1e4320">During the first diagnostic calibration of the degree-day factors, it became
obvious that in late summer, even with extreme high degree-day factors, it
was usually not possible to reproduce the observed hydrograph. The analysis
of the snow cover depletion showed that in most of the years, snow has
vanished from areas below 4000 m a.s.l. already in June and elevation zones
below 5000 m a.s.l. usually become snow-free in July. Thus, the snowmelt
contribution to the flow is rapidly diminishing in August and September (see
Fig. 7).</p>
      <p id="d1e4323">Although the monsoon season usually starts in July, bringing the highest
monthly precipitation depth to the UIB in July and August, the resulting flow
component from rain is not sufficient to create the necessary discharge.
Therefore, many studies postulate a substantial contribution from glacier
melt to the annual flow in the UIB. For example, Immerzeel et al. (2010b)
estimate a contribution of 40 % from snow and 32 % from glacier melt
with the remaining 28 % from rain, Charles (2016) mentioned that the
contribution is 50 % from snow and 20 % from glacial melt.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T5"><caption><p id="d1e4329">Coefficient of determination <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and relative volume
difference <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the Upper and Lower UIB.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center">Upper UIB </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col5" nameend="col6" align="center">Lower UIB </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Year</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  (%)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (%)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2003</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.86</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>17.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.92</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.6</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2004</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.84</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.90</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2005</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.89</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.83</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>17.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2006</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.85</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">8.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.91</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2007</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.88</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2008</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.94</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.92</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2009</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.79</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">14.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.86</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">16.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2010</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.90</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.77</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>16.3</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2011</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.88</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.88</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2012</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.87</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>16.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.89</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">11.9</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2013</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.77</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.93</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2014</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.88</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.92</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">8.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Average</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.86</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.89</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.88</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.03</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e4809">Figure 7 shows the monthly distribution of the three flow components as
calculated by SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G before subjecting to the recession flow calculation
according to Eq. (1). SRM's simple recession flow approach is not mass
conservative and does also not allow a direct attribution, at what day these
flow components actually occur in the daily discharge <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. However, an
overall water balance shows that the difference between water going into
the (virtual) storage and water taken out by the recession flow term
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is about 7 %, which seems acceptable in relation to the uncertainty
associated with the input data. Having in mind the above limitation, the
average (2003–2014) flow component distribution as simulated by SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G
is 53, 21, and 26 % for snow, glacier, and rain, respectively, which
is well within the magnitude of the values found in other studies.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e4856">Comparison of SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G (with glaciers) and SRM
(without glaciers) for the Lower UIB in 2008.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e4874">Comparison of SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G (with glaciers) and SRM
(without glaciers) for the Upper UIB in 2008.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4890">Figures 8 and 9 compare the hydrographs of simulation runs with and without
the glacier component for the Upper and Lower UIB. The effect is more visible in
the Lower UIB as about 10.5 % of the catchment is glaciated, while for the
Upper UIB the glaciated area is merely 1.7 %.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e4895">Results of the validation of the final Upper UIB flow forecast model
(dashed line) compared to observed flows at Kharmong (solid line) for the
year 2014.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e4907">Results of the validation of the final Lower UIB flow forecast model
(dashed line) compared to observed inflows at Tarbela (solid line) for the
year 2014.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>Simulation model verification</title>
      <p id="d1e4923">The simulation model was verified by comparing full year
(1 January–31 December) simulation runs using the actual temperature,
precipitation, and snow cover data versus observed daily flows. Examples of
respective hydrographs for the Upper and Lower UIB are given in Figs. 10 and
11. The resulting coefficients of determination <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and relative volume
differences <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for each year and both the Upper and Lower UIB
model are given in Table 5. Although the years 2003–2012 were used to
calibrate certain model parameters (see Sect. 2.5), they are
also used to validate the model in “forecasting mode”, as in particular
the degree-day factor functions (Tables 1 and 2) were applied as during a
real forecasting procedure, i.e. the starting point was chosen according to
the melting start threshold temperatures as given in Tables 1 and 2. The years 2013
and 2014, on the other hand, were not used at the time of model calibration;
thus they represent a fully independent verification of the simulation
model.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T6"><caption><p id="d1e4951">Comparison of Kharif flow volumes (km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) during 2003–2016.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Year</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Observed</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">IRSA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">UBC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2003</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">67.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">64.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">63.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">63.1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2004</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">51.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">60.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">63.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">60.8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2005</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">68.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">69.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">73.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">60.9</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2006</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">67.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">68.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">73.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">61.6</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2007</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">60.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">74.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">70.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">61.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2008</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">57.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">68.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">59.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">53.9</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2009</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">57.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">63.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">67.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">62.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2010</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">76.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">63.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">68.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">61.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2011</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">60.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">67.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">70.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">59.9</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2012</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">55.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">61.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">61.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">60.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2013</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">65.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">64.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">58.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">59.8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2014</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">52.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">64.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">64.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">61.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2015</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">67.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">63.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">61.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">58.9</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2016</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">66.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">62.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">66.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">63.1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e5264">The average <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.86 and 0.88 for the Upper and Lower UIB,
respectively, indicate that in general the two models simulate the variations in the
observed hydrographs quite acceptably. Values for the years 2013 and 2014
are even above the average for Lower UIB, which is finally essential for
Tarbela inflows, but extreme floods, like 2010 during monsoon season, are
not reproduced that well. The average relative volume differences <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">v</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.89 and 0.03 % for the Upper and Lower UIB, respectively, show that the
simulation models, although not mass-conservative due to the recession
approach (Sect. 2.2) and volume differences vary from year to year, are in
terms of total flow volume not biased over the long run.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <title>Evaluation of forecasting skills</title>
      <p id="d1e5302">In order to evaluate the skills of the forecasting model, hindcasts were
carried out for the years 2003–2014 always using all years, i.e. also the
hindcasted year, as scenario members. For the years 2015 and 2016, real
forecasts have been determined before 1 April of these years, thus
without using the particular year as a scenario. In all cases, the expected
depletion of snow cover area was predicted for each scenario member based on
the respective situation in March of the specific year.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e5307">Comparison of Kharif flow forecasts with 20 and
80 % quantiles of the SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G scenario ensembles for the years 2003–2016.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=312.980315pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e5323">In Table 6, the ensemble medians of hind- and forecasts by SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G are compared
with observed flows, with IRSA's forecasts that are based on a
statistical model, and with forecasts from the UBC watershed model (Quick and
Pipes, 1977) that is used by WAPDA's Glacier Monitoring Research Centre. All
values are total Kharif (1 April–30 September) flow volumes
in 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Figure 12 presents all model results and observed flows
and shows also the 20 and 80 % quantiles of the SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G scenario
ensemble. Table 7 summarises the metrics that are used to compare the
forecast skills of the three models. The RMSE, MAE, and MAPE show an
improvement in accuracy by SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G and the MPE shows a reduction of bias where
SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G tends to slightly under-estimate, while the two other forecasts
moderately overestimate the total Kharif flows. However, both the correlation
coefficients <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and the anomaly coefficients AC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> indicate however, that
the association between forecasts and observations is weak for all three
models. Here, the UBC forecasts show the best correlation followed by
SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G and IRSA. The above aspects of model performance are synoptically
visualised in the Taylor diagram (Taylor, 2001) in Fig. 13 that was
plotted using the R-package Plotrix (Lemon, 2006). All models are comparable
far away from the point of observations given on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-axis, with SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G
having the smallest centred root mean square difference and UBC the best
correlation coefficient.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13"><caption><p id="d1e5413">Taylor diagram of IRSA, UBC, and SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G model
performance.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018-f13.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T7" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e5432">Comparison of forecast skills between IRSA, UBC, and
SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Model</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" colname="col2">MAE</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" colname="col3">RMSE</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" colname="col4">MPE</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" colname="col5">MAPE</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" colname="col6">R</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" colname="col7">AC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" colname="col8">PSS</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">%</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">%</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">IRSA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">6.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">8.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">10.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.107</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.085</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.070</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">UBC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">6.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">11.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.318</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.260</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.096</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">6.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">9.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.223</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.168</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.079</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e5658">In order to evaluate the model skills in forecasting extreme conditions, i.e. dry or
wet, the Peirce skill score was applied. The limits between the
categories dry, normal, and wet conditions were defined as 20 and 80 %
non-exceedance of the observed historic Kharif flow series 2003–2016,
which corresponds to quantiles of 56.8  and 67.9 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. Obviously IRSA and SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G forecasts have no skill in this
respect, while UBC shows some, although limited, skill compared to purely
random chance.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F14" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e5679">Plume diagram of ensemble member traces in 2003.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=412.564961pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018-f14.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F15" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e5691">Plume diagram of ensemble member traces in 2008.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=412.564961pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018-f15.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e5700">As only point estimates of IRSA and UBC forecasts were available, the
assessment of probabilistic skill only applies to the SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G scenario
ensembles. Figures 14 and 15 show typical traces of ensemble members as well
as the observed, mean, and historic trace. In most years, the ensemble mean
is closer to the observed value than the historic trace.</p>
      <p id="d1e5710">The RPSS was used to assess the overall performance of the probabilistic
forecast. The same category limits as for the Peirce skill score were chosen,
i.e. the 20 and 80 % quantiles of the observed flow series. As no other probabilistic
forecasts were available as reference forecast, the ranked probability score
RPS of the scenario forecast ensembles was compared to the climatology, i.e.
the average Kharif flow of the observed series of 62.7 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The RPS of
scenario forecast ensembles and climatology were 0.370 and 0.462,
respectively. The resulting RPSS of 0.20 indicates that the scenario ensemble
shows some, however limited, skill and improvement over a constant forecast
of the historic average.</p>
      <p id="d1e5722">The reliability diagram (Fig. 16) was constructed with the aforementioned
three forecast categories: dry (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 56.8 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, near normal, and wet
(&gt; 67.9 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> conditions based on the historic observations
and using for each forecast the frequency of ensemble members falling into
the respective category. The resulting reliability diagram is relatively
rugged and has gaps in several classes, although each forecast category was
treated as an individual forecast resulting in 42 scalar forecasts. However,
in total there are only 14 observations, which causes the outlier at the
forecast probability class 0.6. There were 3 forecasts that fell into this
very class but none of the 14 observations. As can be seen from the sharpness
diagram, there are also empty forecast classes (0.4 and 0.5), meaning these
probabilities have never occurred in any forecast category. Besides the
shortcoming of the limited sample size and in particular the outlier, most
points are located around the 1 : 1 line indicating that there is no dry or
wet bias and that they fall within an acceptable distance. Resolution,
although difficult to assess taking the limited number of points, seems to be
a bit weak, i.e. with a tendency to over-confidence, which may be
caused by the fact that the available scenario years comprise mostly near
normal conditions.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F16"><caption><p id="d1e5758">Reliability diagram of
probability forecasts in the categories dry (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 %), near
normal, and wet (&gt; 80 %) of 2003–2014 flows.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/22/1391/2018/hess-22-1391-2018-f16.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e5782">The SRM was applied to the UIB in order to forecast the
total Kharif inflow to the Tarbela reservoir. Several improvements had to be
introduced to SRM in order to meet the specific requirements of the UIB.</p>
      <p id="d1e5785">Not surprisingly, a separate component had to be added to SRM in order to
consider the flow component originating from glacier melt. Without this
component, especially in the late summer months, there is a lack of water to
meet the observed hydrograph. All-year simulation runs with SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G for the
period 2003–2014 result in an average flow component distribution of
53, 21, or 26 % for snow, glacier, or rain, respectively, which
fits well to the values found in a number of other studies.</p>
      <p id="d1e5795">It is well known, that the Tibetan Plateau receives significantly lesser
precipitation than the western parts of the UIB. In addition, MODIS data
shows that the snow cover is fading away in early spring much faster than in
the other parts. In the present study, SRM's modified depletion curve
approach for predicting the snow cover depletion during the forecast period
has proven to be very sensitive to errors in the estimation of the actual
snow-water equivalent. In such cases, it is inevitable to split the catchment
into more homogeneous units. Therefore, the superposition of flows from
sub-catchments by using a time lag was introduced to SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G, which leads to
a significant improvement in the forecasts of snowmelt-dominated early Kharif
flows in particular.</p>
      <p id="d1e5805">The scenario approach is a step towards probabilistic forecasting of
seasonal flows in the UIB. As the accuracy of existing forecasts with a mean
volume error of 10.9 and 11.4 % is already quite high, the improvement
by SRM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>G having a MAPE of 9.5 % is only limited. The bias, however, could
be reduced to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.0 %. Association between forecasts and observations is
rather weak for all three models, just as none of the models has significant
skill in predicting extreme dry or wet conditions.</p>
      <p id="d1e5823">Regarding the scenario approach, it is obvious that as far as the variables
precipitation and temperature are concerned, these tend towards the
climatology, i.e. the long-term averages. A variance in the forecasts is
only introduced by the different estimates of the snow-cover depletion
curves for each forecast. Thus, a promising way to improve the association
and sharpness of the scenario approach would be a selection of a subset of
ensemble members according to forecasted seasonal anomalies in temperature
and precipitation. A quick test using only the five lowest, middle, or
highest ensemble members selected according to the (known) relative flow
frequency of the forecasted year gives promising results, e.g. not only a
MAPE of 4.9 % but also an AC<inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.78 and a PSS of 0.41. The
challenge of course is to forecast the seasonal anomaly in temperature and
precipitation. In this respect, further research is needed on how today's
global forecast systems may allow a more specific selection of ensemble
members particularly in the UIB, where the correlation to common
teleconnections like the ENSO<fn id="Ch1.Footn7"><p id="d1e5835">El Niño Southern Oscillation.</p></fn>
status is known to be weak.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability">

      <p id="d1e5843">MODIS/Terra Snow Cover Daily L3 Global 500m Grid V005, NOAA
RFE (Rainfall Estimates), Glacier database, Daily Temperature data from GSOD
and Digital Elevation Model are public data sets which can be downloaded from
the following links provided that access is requested. Access to MODIS data
can be granted by applying for a login at <uri>https://urs.earthdata.nasa.gov/</uri>. MODIS (2018):
<uri>https://n5eil01u.ecs.nsidc.org/MOST/MOD10A1.005</uri> RFE (2018):
<uri>ftp://ftp.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/fews/afghan/</uri> GLIMS (2013):
<uri>http://www.glims.org</uri> GSOD (2018):
<uri>ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/gsod/</uri> DEM (2014):
<uri>https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/</uri>. Data from the various public
authorities are partly public.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p id="d1e5868">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="sistatement">

      <p id="d1e5874">This article is part of the special issue “Sub-seasonal to
seasonal hydrological forecasting”. It is not associated with a conference.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e5880">The authors thank National Engineering Services Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.
(NESPAK), Lahore and AHT Group AG, Essen, Germany for being a part of the
project team. We are highly grateful to
the Indus River System Authority (IRSA), WAPDA's Glacier Monitoring Research
Centre (GMRC), and WAPDA's Surface
Water Hydrology Project (SWHP) for sharing their forecast results as well as
the daily discharge data. The authors are also thankful to the two anonymous
reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments that substantially
helped to improve the quality of the manuscript.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Edited by: Fredrik Wetterhall <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Reviewed by:
two anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Adnan, M., Nabi, G., Poomee, M. S., and Ashraf, A.: Snowmelt runoff
prediction under changing climate in the Himalayan cryosphere: A case of
Gilgit River Basin, Geosci. Front., 8, 941–949, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Akram, A. A.: Indus Basin water resources, Tiempo, Issue 70, available at:
<uri>http://www.environmentportal.in/files/Indus Basin.pdf</uri> (last access:
5 February 2018), 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Archer, D. R. and Fowler, H. J.: Spatial and temporal variations in
precipitation in the Upper Indus Basin, global teleconnections and
hydrological implications, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 8, 47–61,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-8-47-2004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-8-47-2004</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Bogacki, W. and Hashmi, D.: Impact of Climate Change on the Flow Regime of
the Mangla Basin, GWSP Conference “Water in the Anthropocene: Challenges for
Science and Governance. Indicators, Thresholds and Uncertainties of the
Global Water System”, Bonn, available at:
<uri>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305992356_Impact_of_Climate_Change_on_the_Flow_Regime_of_the_Mangla_Basin</uri>,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1934.6167" ext-link-type="DOI">10.13140/RG.2.1.1934.6167</ext-link> (8 August 2016), 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Bogacki, W. and Ismail, M. F.: Seasonal forecast of Kharif flows from Upper
Jhelum catchment, Proc. IAHS, 374, 137–142,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-374-137-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/piahs-374-137-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Bookhagen, B. and Burbank, D. W.: Toward a complete Himalayan hydrological
budget: Spatiotemporal distribution of snowmelt and rainfall and their impact
on river discharge, J. Geophys. Res., 115, F03019, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JF001426" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009JF001426</ext-link>,
2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Butt, M. J. and Bilal, M.: Application of snowmelt runoff model for water
resource management, Hydrol. Process., 25, 3735–3747, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8099" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.8099</ext-link>,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Charles, S. P.: Hydroclimate of the Indus – synthesis of the literature
relevant to Indus basin hydroclimate processes, trends, seasonal forecasting
and climate change, CSIRO Sustainable Development Investment Portfolio
project, CSIRO Land and Water, Australia, 48 pp., 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Clarke, M.: Climate Change Considerations for Hydropower Projects in the
Indus River Basin, Pakistan. Impact Assessment in the Digital Era, 35th
Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment,
Italy, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Day, G. N.: Extended Streamflow Forecasting Using NWSRFS, J. Water Res. Plan.
Man., 111, 157–170, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1985)111:2(157)" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1985)111:2(157)</ext-link>, 1985.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>DEM: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey, SRTM 1
Arc-Second Global, available at: <uri>https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/</uri> (last
access: 20 February 2018), 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Forsythe, N., Fowler, H. J., Kilsby, C. G.,  and Archer, D. R.: Opportunities
from remote sensing for supporting water resources management in
village/valley scale catchments in the Upper Indus Basin,  Water Resour.
Manage.,  26, 845–871, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Franz, K. J., Hartmann, H. C., Sorooshian, S., and Bales, R.: Verification
of National Weather Service Ensemble Streamflow Predictions for water supply
forecasting in the Colorado River basin, J. Hydrometeorol., 4, 1105–1118,
2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Franz, K. J., Hogue, T. S., and Sorooshian, S.: Snow Model Verification Using
Ensemble Prediction and Operational Benchmarks,   J. Hydrometeorol., 9,
1402–1415, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JHM995.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2008JHM995.1</ext-link>,  2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>GLIMS: U.S. Geological Survey, Global Land Ice Measurements from Space
(GLIMS) Project, available at: <uri>http://www.glims.org/maps/glims</uri> (last
access: 20 February 2018), 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>GSOD: NCDC Climate Services Branch (CSB), Global Summary Of the Day (GSOD)
(2000–2016), available at: <uri>ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/gsod/</uri>,
last access: 20 February 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Hall, D. K., Riggs, G. A., and Salomonson, V. V.: MODIS snow and sea ice
products, in: Earth Science Satellite Remote Sensing – Volume I: Science and
Instruments, edited by: Qu, J., Springer-Verlag Press, Berlin, Heidelburg,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Hock, R.: Temperature index melt modelling in mountain areas,  J. Hydrol.,  282, 104–115, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Immerzeel, W. W., Droogers, P., de Jong, S. M., and Bierkens, M. F. P.:
Large-scale monitoring of snow cover and runoff simulation in Himalayan
river basins using remote sensing, Remote Sens. Environ., 113,
40–49, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2008.08.010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2008.08.010</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Immerzeel, W. W., van Beek, L. P. H., and Bierkens, M. F. P.: Climate change
will affect the Asian water towers, Science, 328, 1382–1385, 2010a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Immerzeel, W. W., Droogers, P., de Jong, S. M., and Bierkens, M. F. P:
Satellite Derived Snow and Runoff Dynamics in the Upper Indus River Basin,
Grazer Schriften der Geographie und Raumforschung, 45, 303–312, 2010b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Ismail, M. F., Rehman, H., Bogacki, W., and Noor, M.: Degree Day Factor
Models for Forecasting the Snowmelt Runoff for Naran Watershed, Sci. Int.
Lahore, 27, 1961–1969, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Kirpich, Z. P.: Time of concentration in small agricultural watersheds, Civil
Eng., 10, 362–368, 1940.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Lemon, J: Plotrix: a package in the red light district of R,  R-News, 6,
8–12, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Martinec, J.: Snowmelt-Runoff Model for Stream Flow Forecasts, Nord.
Hydrol., 6, 145–154, 1975.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Martinec, J., Rango, A., and Roberts, R.: Snowmelt Runoff Model User's
Manual, WinSRM Version 1.14,  Agricultural Experiment Station Special Report
100, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Ménégoz, M., Gallée, H., and Jacobi, H. W.: Precipitation and snow
cover in the Himalaya: from reanalysis to regional climate simulations,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 3921–3936,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3921-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-17-3921-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>MODIS: National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Boulder, Colorado, USA,
MODIS/Terra Snow Cover Daily L3 Global 500m Grid V005,
(February 2000–December 2016, tiles h23v05 &amp; h24v05), available at:
<uri>https://n5eil01u.ecs.nsidc.org/MOST/MOD10A1.005</uri>, last access:
20 February 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Murphy, A. H.: Scalar and vector partitions of the probability score: Part
II. N-state situation, J. Appl. Meteor., 11, 1183–1192, 1972.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Murphy, A. H.: A new vector partition of the probability score, J. Appl.
Meteor., 12, 595–600, 1973.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Murphy, A. H. and Winkler, R. L.: A general framework for forecast
verification, Mon. Weather Rev., 115, 1330–1338, 1987.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Palazzi, E., Hardenberg, J., and Provenzale, A.: Precipitation in the
Hindu-Kush Karakoram Himalaya: Observations and future scenarios, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 118, 85–100, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018697" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012JD018697</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Pellicciotti, F. Buergi, C., Immerzeel, W. W., Konz, M., and Shrestha, A. B.:
Challenges and Uncertainties in Hydrological Modeling of Remote Hindu
Kush–Karakoram–Himalayan (HKH) Basins. Suggestions for Calibration
Strategies, Mt. Res. Dev., 32, 39–50, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-11-00092.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-11-00092.1</ext-link>,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Quick, M. C. and Pipes, A.: UBC watershed model, Hydrol. Sci. Bull., 221,
153–161, 1977.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Raup, B. H., Racoviteanu, A., Khalsa, S. J. S., Helm, C., Armstrong, R., and
Arnaud, Y.: The GLIMS Geospatial Glacier Database: a New Tool for Studying
Glacier Change, Global Planet. Change, 56, 101–110, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Reggiani, P. and Rientjes, T. H. M.: A reflection on the long-term water
balance of the Upper Indus Basin, Hydrol. Res., 46, 446–462,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2014.060" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2166/nh.2014.060</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>RFE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather
Service, Center for Weather and Climate Prediction, RFE v2.0
(February 2000–December 2016), available at:
<uri>ftp://ftp.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/fews/afghan/</uri>, last access: 20 February
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Schaper, J. and Seidel, K.: Modelling daily runoff from snow and glacier melt
using remote sensing data, in: Proceedings of the 2nd EARSel Workshop –
Special Interest Group Land Ice and Snow, 308–316, 2000.
 </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Schaper, J., Martinec, J., and Seidel, K.: Distributed Mapping of Snow and
Glaciers for Improved Runoff Modelling, Hydrol. Process., 13, 2023–2031,
1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Schaper, J., Seidel, K., and Martinec, J.: Precision snow cover and glacier
mapping for runoff modelling in a high alpine basin, IAHS Publ., 267, 2001,
105–111, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Tahir, A. A., Chevallier, P., Arnaud, Y., and Ahmad, B.: Snow cover dynamics
and hydrological regime of the Hunza River basin, Karakoram Range, Northern
Pakistan, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 2275–2290,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-2275-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-15-2275-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Taylor, K. E.: Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single
diagram, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 7183–7192, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900719" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000JD900719</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>USDA: National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, Part 630 Hydrology Chapters.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
available at:
<uri>https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/wntsc/H&amp;H/NEHhydrology/ch15.pdf</uri>
(last access: 5 February 2018), 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Viviroli, D., Dürr, H. H., Messerli, B., Meybeck, M., and Weingartner,
R.: Mountains of the world, water towers for humanity. Typology, mapping, and
global significance, Water Resour. Res., 43, W07447,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005653" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006WR005653</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Ward, E., Buytaert, W., Peaver, H., and Wheater, L.: Evaluation of
precipitation products over complex mountainous terrain: A water resources
perspective, Adv. Water Resour., 34, 1222–1231, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Wood, A. W. and Lettenmaier, D. P.: An ensemble approach for attribution of
hydrologic prediction uncertainty, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, 642, L14401,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL034648" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008GL034648</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Wilks, D. S.: Statistical Methods in Atmospheric Sciences, 2nd ed., Elsevier
Science &amp; Technology Books, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Xie, P., Yarosh, Y., Love, T., Jonowiak, J. E., and Arkin, P. A.: A real-time
daily precipitation analysis over south asia, Preprint of the 16th Conference
on Hydrology, Orlando, Florida, American Meteorological Society, Washington
DC, USA, available at:
<uri>http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/fews/sasia_rfe.pdf</uri> (last access:
5 February 2018), 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Scenario approach for the seasonal forecast of Kharif flows  from the Upper Indus Basin</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p class="p">Snow and glacial melt runoff are the major sources of water
contribution from the high mountainous terrain of the Indus River upstream of the
Tarbela reservoir. A reliable forecast of seasonal water availability for the
Kharif cropping season (April–September) can pave the way towards better
water management and a subsequent boost in the agro-economy of Pakistan.
The use of degree-day models in conjunction with satellite-based remote-sensing
data for the forecasting of seasonal snow and ice melt runoff has
proved to be a suitable approach for data-scarce regions. In the present
research, the Snowmelt Runoff Model (SRM) has not only been enhanced by
incorporating the <q>glacier (G)</q> component but also applied for the forecast
of seasonal water availability from the Upper Indus Basin (UIB). Excel-based
SRM+G takes account of separate degree-day factors for snow and
glacier melt processes. All-year simulation runs with SRM+G for the period
2003–2014 result in an average flow component distribution of 53,
21, and 26 % for snow, glacier, and rain, respectively. The UIB has been
divided into Upper and Lower parts because of the different climatic
conditions in the Tibetan Plateau. The scenario approach for seasonal
forecasting, which like the Ensemble Streamflow Prediction method uses historic
meteorology as model forcings, has proven to be adequate for long-term water
availability forecasts. The accuracy of the forecast with a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 9.5 %
could be slightly improved compared to two existing operational forecasts for
the UIB, and the bias could be reduced to −2.0 %. However, the association
between forecasts and observations as well as the skill in predicting extreme
conditions is rather weak for all three models, which motivates further
research on the selection of a subset of ensemble members according to
forecasted seasonal anomalies.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Adnan, M., Nabi, G., Poomee, M. S., and Ashraf, A.: Snowmelt runoff
prediction under changing climate in the Himalayan cryosphere: A case of
Gilgit River Basin, Geosci. Front., 8, 941–949, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Akram, A. A.: Indus Basin water resources, Tiempo, Issue 70, available at:
<a href="http://www.environmentportal.in/files/Indus Basin.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.environmentportal.in/files/Indus Basin.pdf</a> (last access:
5 February 2018), 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Archer, D. R. and Fowler, H. J.: Spatial and temporal variations in
precipitation in the Upper Indus Basin, global teleconnections and
hydrological implications, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 8, 47–61,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-8-47-2004" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-8-47-2004</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bogacki, W. and Hashmi, D.: Impact of Climate Change on the Flow Regime of
the Mangla Basin, GWSP Conference “Water in the Anthropocene: Challenges for
Science and Governance. Indicators, Thresholds and Uncertainties of the
Global Water System”, Bonn, available at:
<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305992356_Impact_of_Climate_Change_on_the_Flow_Regime_of_the_Mangla_Basin" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305992356_Impact_of_Climate_Change_on_the_Flow_Regime_of_the_Mangla_Basin</a>,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1934.6167" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1934.6167</a> (8 August 2016), 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Bogacki, W. and Ismail, M. F.: Seasonal forecast of Kharif flows from Upper
Jhelum catchment, Proc. IAHS, 374, 137–142,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-374-137-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-374-137-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Bookhagen, B. and Burbank, D. W.: Toward a complete Himalayan hydrological
budget: Spatiotemporal distribution of snowmelt and rainfall and their impact
on river discharge, J. Geophys. Res., 115, F03019, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JF001426" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JF001426</a>,
2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Butt, M. J. and Bilal, M.: Application of snowmelt runoff model for water
resource management, Hydrol. Process., 25, 3735–3747, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8099" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8099</a>,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Charles, S. P.: Hydroclimate of the Indus – synthesis of the literature
relevant to Indus basin hydroclimate processes, trends, seasonal forecasting
and climate change, CSIRO Sustainable Development Investment Portfolio
project, CSIRO Land and Water, Australia, 48 pp., 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Clarke, M.: Climate Change Considerations for Hydropower Projects in the
Indus River Basin, Pakistan. Impact Assessment in the Digital Era, 35th
Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment,
Italy, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Day, G. N.: Extended Streamflow Forecasting Using NWSRFS, J. Water Res. Plan.
Man., 111, 157–170, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1985)111:2(157)" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1985)111:2(157)</a>, 1985.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
DEM: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey, SRTM 1
Arc-Second Global, available at: <a href="https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/" target="_blank">https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/</a> (last
access: 20 February 2018), 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Forsythe, N., Fowler, H. J., Kilsby, C. G.,  and Archer, D. R.: Opportunities
from remote sensing for supporting water resources management in
village/valley scale catchments in the Upper Indus Basin,  Water Resour.
Manage.,  26, 845–871, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Franz, K. J., Hartmann, H. C., Sorooshian, S., and Bales, R.: Verification
of National Weather Service Ensemble Streamflow Predictions for water supply
forecasting in the Colorado River basin, J. Hydrometeorol., 4, 1105–1118,
2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Franz, K. J., Hogue, T. S., and Sorooshian, S.: Snow Model Verification Using
Ensemble Prediction and Operational Benchmarks,   J. Hydrometeorol., 9,
1402–1415, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JHM995.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JHM995.1</a>,  2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
GLIMS: U.S. Geological Survey, Global Land Ice Measurements from Space
(GLIMS) Project, available at: <a href="http://www.glims.org/maps/glims" target="_blank">http://www.glims.org/maps/glims</a> (last
access: 20 February 2018), 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
GSOD: NCDC Climate Services Branch (CSB), Global Summary Of the Day (GSOD)
(2000–2016), available at: <a href="ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/gsod/" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/gsod/</a>,
last access: 20 February 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Hall, D. K., Riggs, G. A., and Salomonson, V. V.: MODIS snow and sea ice
products, in: Earth Science Satellite Remote Sensing – Volume I: Science and
Instruments, edited by: Qu, J., Springer-Verlag Press, Berlin, Heidelburg,
2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Hock, R.: Temperature index melt modelling in mountain areas,  J. Hydrol.,  282, 104–115, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Immerzeel, W. W., Droogers, P., de Jong, S. M., and Bierkens, M. F. P.:
Large-scale monitoring of snow cover and runoff simulation in Himalayan
river basins using remote sensing, Remote Sens. Environ., 113,
40–49, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2008.08.010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2008.08.010</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Immerzeel, W. W., van Beek, L. P. H., and Bierkens, M. F. P.: Climate change
will affect the Asian water towers, Science, 328, 1382–1385, 2010a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Immerzeel, W. W., Droogers, P., de Jong, S. M., and Bierkens, M. F. P:
Satellite Derived Snow and Runoff Dynamics in the Upper Indus River Basin,
Grazer Schriften der Geographie und Raumforschung, 45, 303–312, 2010b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Ismail, M. F., Rehman, H., Bogacki, W., and Noor, M.: Degree Day Factor
Models for Forecasting the Snowmelt Runoff for Naran Watershed, Sci. Int.
Lahore, 27, 1961–1969, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Kirpich, Z. P.: Time of concentration in small agricultural watersheds, Civil
Eng., 10, 362–368, 1940.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Lemon, J: Plotrix: a package in the red light district of R,  R-News, 6,
8–12, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Martinec, J.: Snowmelt-Runoff Model for Stream Flow Forecasts, Nord.
Hydrol., 6, 145–154, 1975.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Martinec, J., Rango, A., and Roberts, R.: Snowmelt Runoff Model User's
Manual, WinSRM Version 1.14,  Agricultural Experiment Station Special Report
100, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Ménégoz, M., Gallée, H., and Jacobi, H. W.: Precipitation and snow
cover in the Himalaya: from reanalysis to regional climate simulations,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 3921–3936,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3921-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3921-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
MODIS: National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Boulder, Colorado, USA,
MODIS/Terra Snow Cover Daily L3 Global 500m Grid V005,
(February 2000–December 2016, tiles h23v05 &amp; h24v05), available at:
<a href="https://n5eil01u.ecs.nsidc.org/MOST/MOD10A1.005" target="_blank">https://n5eil01u.ecs.nsidc.org/MOST/MOD10A1.005</a>, last access:
20 February 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Murphy, A. H.: Scalar and vector partitions of the probability score: Part
II. N-state situation, J. Appl. Meteor., 11, 1183–1192, 1972.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Murphy, A. H.: A new vector partition of the probability score, J. Appl.
Meteor., 12, 595–600, 1973.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Murphy, A. H. and Winkler, R. L.: A general framework for forecast
verification, Mon. Weather Rev., 115, 1330–1338, 1987.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Palazzi, E., Hardenberg, J., and Provenzale, A.: Precipitation in the
Hindu-Kush Karakoram Himalaya: Observations and future scenarios, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 118, 85–100, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018697" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018697</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Pellicciotti, F. Buergi, C., Immerzeel, W. W., Konz, M., and Shrestha, A. B.:
Challenges and Uncertainties in Hydrological Modeling of Remote Hindu
Kush–Karakoram–Himalayan (HKH) Basins. Suggestions for Calibration
Strategies, Mt. Res. Dev., 32, 39–50, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-11-00092.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-11-00092.1</a>,
2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Quick, M. C. and Pipes, A.: UBC watershed model, Hydrol. Sci. Bull., 221,
153–161, 1977.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Raup, B. H., Racoviteanu, A., Khalsa, S. J. S., Helm, C., Armstrong, R., and
Arnaud, Y.: The GLIMS Geospatial Glacier Database: a New Tool for Studying
Glacier Change, Global Planet. Change, 56, 101–110, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Reggiani, P. and Rientjes, T. H. M.: A reflection on the long-term water
balance of the Upper Indus Basin, Hydrol. Res., 46, 446–462,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2014.060" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2014.060</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
RFE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather
Service, Center for Weather and Climate Prediction, RFE v2.0
(February 2000–December 2016), available at:
<a href="ftp://ftp.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/fews/afghan/" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/fews/afghan/</a>, last access: 20 February
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Schaper, J. and Seidel, K.: Modelling daily runoff from snow and glacier melt
using remote sensing data, in: Proceedings of the 2nd EARSel Workshop –
Special Interest Group Land Ice and Snow, 308–316, 2000.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Schaper, J., Martinec, J., and Seidel, K.: Distributed Mapping of Snow and
Glaciers for Improved Runoff Modelling, Hydrol. Process., 13, 2023–2031,
1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Schaper, J., Seidel, K., and Martinec, J.: Precision snow cover and glacier
mapping for runoff modelling in a high alpine basin, IAHS Publ., 267, 2001,
105–111, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Tahir, A. A., Chevallier, P., Arnaud, Y., and Ahmad, B.: Snow cover dynamics
and hydrological regime of the Hunza River basin, Karakoram Range, Northern
Pakistan, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 2275–2290,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-2275-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-2275-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Taylor, K. E.: Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single
diagram, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 7183–7192, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900719" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900719</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
USDA: National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, Part 630 Hydrology Chapters.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
available at:
<a href="https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/wntsc/H&amp;H/NEHhydrology/ch15.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/wntsc/H&amp;H/NEHhydrology/ch15.pdf</a>
(last access: 5 February 2018), 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Viviroli, D., Dürr, H. H., Messerli, B., Meybeck, M., and Weingartner,
R.: Mountains of the world, water towers for humanity. Typology, mapping, and
global significance, Water Resour. Res., 43, W07447,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005653" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005653</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Ward, E., Buytaert, W., Peaver, H., and Wheater, L.: Evaluation of
precipitation products over complex mountainous terrain: A water resources
perspective, Adv. Water Resour., 34, 1222–1231, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Wood, A. W. and Lettenmaier, D. P.: An ensemble approach for attribution of
hydrologic prediction uncertainty, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, 642, L14401,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL034648" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL034648</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Wilks, D. S.: Statistical Methods in Atmospheric Sciences, 2nd ed., Elsevier
Science &amp; Technology Books, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Xie, P., Yarosh, Y., Love, T., Jonowiak, J. E., and Arkin, P. A.: A real-time
daily precipitation analysis over south asia, Preprint of the 16th Conference
on Hydrology, Orlando, Florida, American Meteorological Society, Washington
DC, USA, available at:
<a href="http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/fews/sasia_rfe.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/fews/sasia_rfe.pdf</a> (last access:
5 February 2018), 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
