%DIF 1-12d1
%DIF LATEXDIFF DIFFERENCE FILE
%DIF DEL FirstSub/template.tex                      Tue Nov 21 15:43:23 2017
%DIF ADD FirstRevision/firstrevision/template.tex   Wed Dec 13 08:02:00 2017
%DIF < %% Copernicus Publications Manuscript Preparation Template for LaTeX Submissions
%DIF < %% ---------------------------------
%DIF < %% This template should be used for copernicus.cls
%DIF < %% The class file and some style files are bundled in the Copernicus Latex Package, which can be downloaded from the different journal webpages.
%DIF < %% For further assistance please contact Copernicus Publications at: production@copernicus.org
%DIF < %% http://publications.copernicus.org/for_authors/manuscript_preparation.html
%DIF < 
%DIF < 
%DIF < %% Please use the following documentclass and journal abbreviations for discussion papers and final revised papers.
%DIF < 
%DIF < 
%DIF < %% 2-column papers and discussion papers
%DIF -------
\documentclass[hess, manuscript]{copernicus}
%DIF 14-68d2
%DIF < 
%DIF < 
%DIF < 
%DIF < %% Journal abbreviations (please use the same for discussion papers and final revised papers)
%DIF < 
%DIF < % Archives Animal Breeding (aab)
%DIF < % Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (acp)
%DIF < % Advances in Geosciences (adgeo)
%DIF < % Advances in Statistical Climatology, Meteorology and Oceanography (ascmo)
%DIF < % Annales Geophysicae (angeo)
%DIF < % ASTRA Proceedings (ap)
%DIF < % Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (amt)
%DIF < % Advances in Radio Science (ars)
%DIF < % Advances in Science and Research (asr)
%DIF < % Biogeosciences (bg)
%DIF < % Climate of the Past (cp)
%DIF < % Drinking Water Engineering and Science (dwes)
%DIF < % Earth System Dynamics (esd)
%DIF < % Earth Surface Dynamics (esurf)
%DIF < % Earth System Science Data (essd)
%DIF < % Fossil Record (fr)
%DIF < % Geographica Helvetica (gh)
%DIF < % Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems (gi)
%DIF < % Geoscientific Model Development (gmd)
%DIF < % Geothermal Energy Science (gtes)
%DIF < % Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (hess)
%DIF < % History of Geo- and Space Sciences (hgss)
%DIF < % Journal of Sensors and Sensor Systems (jsss)
%DIF < % Mechanical Sciences (ms)
%DIF < % Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (nhess)
%DIF < % Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics (npg)
%DIF < % Ocean Science (os)
%DIF < % Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences (piahs)
%DIF < % Primate Biology (pb)
%DIF < % Scientific Drilling (sd)
%DIF < % SOIL (soil)
%DIF < % Solid Earth (se)
%DIF < % The Cryosphere (tc)
%DIF < % Web Ecology (we)
%DIF < % Wind Energy Science (wes)
%DIF < 
%DIF < 
%DIF < %% \usepackage commands included in the copernicus.cls:
%DIF < %\usepackage[german, english]{babel}
%DIF < %\usepackage{tabularx}
%DIF < %\usepackage{cancel}
%DIF < %\usepackage{supertabular}
%DIF < %\usepackage{algorithmic}
%DIF < %\usepackage{algorithm}
%DIF < %\usepackage{amsthm}
%DIF < %\usepackage{float}
%DIF < %\usepackage{subfig}
%DIF < %\usepackage{rotating}
%DIF < 
%DIF < 
%DIF -------
\newcommand{\mc}[2]{\multicolumn{#1}{c}{#2}}
%DIF 70d3
%DIF < 
%DIF -------
\usepackage{graphicx} %package to manage images
\usepackage[rightcaption]{sidecap}
%DIF 73d5
%DIF < %\usepackage{wrapfig}
%DIF -------
\usepackage{subfigure}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage[table,xcdraw]{xcolor}
\usepackage{slashbox}
\usepackage{multicol}
\usepackage{makecell}
\usepackage{amsmath}
%DIF < % \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
%DIF -------
\usepackage{chngcntr} %DIF > 
%DIF < % \usepackage{hyperref}
\newcommand{\rpm}{\sbox0{$1$}\sbox2{$\scriptstyle\pm$} %DIF > 
%DIF < % \usepackage{biblatex}
  \raise\dimexpr(\ht0-\ht2)/2\relax\box2 } %DIF > 
%DIF < % \usepackage{xcolor,colortbl}
   %DIF > 
%DIF < % \graphicspath{ {fig/} }
%DIF PREAMBLE EXTENSION ADDED BY LATEXDIFF
\RequirePackage[normalem]{ulem} %DIF PREAMBLE
\RequirePackage{color}\definecolor{RED}{rgb}{1,0,0}\definecolor{BLUE}{rgb}{0,0,1} %DIF PREAMBLE
\providecommand{\DIFadd}[1]{{\protect\color{blue}{#1}}} %DIF PREAMBLE
\providecommand{\DIFdel}[1]{}                      %DIF PREAMBLE
%\providecommand{\DIFdel}[1]{{\protect\color{red}\sout{#1}}}                      %DIF PREAMBLE
%DIF SAFE PREAMBLE %DIF PREAMBLE
\providecommand{\DIFaddbegin}{} %DIF PREAMBLE
\providecommand{\DIFaddend}{} %DIF PREAMBLE
\providecommand{\DIFdelbegin}{} %DIF PREAMBLE
\providecommand{\DIFdelend}{} %DIF PREAMBLE
%DIF FLOATSAFE PREAMBLE %DIF PREAMBLE
\providecommand{\DIFaddFL}[1]{\DIFadd{#1}} %DIF PREAMBLE
\providecommand{\DIFdelFL}[1]{\DIFdel{#1}} %DIF PREAMBLE
\providecommand{\DIFaddbeginFL}{} %DIF PREAMBLE
\providecommand{\DIFaddendFL}{} %DIF PREAMBLE
\providecommand{\DIFdelbeginFL}{} %DIF PREAMBLE
\providecommand{\DIFdelendFL}{} %DIF PREAMBLE
%DIF END PREAMBLE EXTENSION ADDED BY LATEXDIFF %DIF PREAMBLE
\newcommand{\DIFscaledelfig}{0.5}
%DIF HIGHLIGHTGRAPHICS PREAMBLE %DIF PREAMBLE
\RequirePackage{settobox} %DIF PREAMBLE
\RequirePackage{letltxmacro} %DIF PREAMBLE
\newsavebox{\DIFdelgraphicsbox} %DIF PREAMBLE
\newlength{\DIFdelgraphicswidth} %DIF PREAMBLE
\newlength{\DIFdelgraphicsheight} %DIF PREAMBLE
% store original definition of \includegraphics %DIF PREAMBLE
\LetLtxMacro{\DIFOincludegraphics}{\includegraphics} %DIF PREAMBLE
\newcommand{\DIFaddincludegraphics}[2][]{{\color{blue}\fbox{\DIFOincludegraphics[#1]{#2}}}} %DIF PREAMBLE
\newcommand{\DIFdelincludegraphics}[2][]{% %DIF PREAMBLE
\sbox{\DIFdelgraphicsbox}{\DIFOincludegraphics[#1]{#2}}% %DIF PREAMBLE
\settoboxwidth{\DIFdelgraphicswidth}{\DIFdelgraphicsbox} %DIF PREAMBLE
\settoboxtotalheight{\DIFdelgraphicsheight}{\DIFdelgraphicsbox} %DIF PREAMBLE
\scalebox{\DIFscaledelfig}{% %DIF PREAMBLE
\parbox[b]{\DIFdelgraphicswidth}{\usebox{\DIFdelgraphicsbox}\\[-\baselineskip] \rule{\DIFdelgraphicswidth}{0em}}\llap{\resizebox{\DIFdelgraphicswidth}{\DIFdelgraphicsheight}{% %DIF PREAMBLE
\setlength{\unitlength}{\DIFdelgraphicswidth}% %DIF PREAMBLE
\begin{picture}(1,1)% %DIF PREAMBLE
\thicklines\linethickness{2pt} %DIF PREAMBLE
{\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\put(0,0){\framebox(1,1){}}}% %DIF PREAMBLE
{\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\put(0,0){\line( 1,1){1}}}% %DIF PREAMBLE
{\color[rgb]{1,0,0}\put(0,1){\line(1,-1){1}}}% %DIF PREAMBLE
\end{picture}% %DIF PREAMBLE
}\hspace*{3pt}}} %DIF PREAMBLE
} %DIF PREAMBLE
\LetLtxMacro{\DIFOaddbegin}{\DIFaddbegin} %DIF PREAMBLE
\LetLtxMacro{\DIFOaddend}{\DIFaddend} %DIF PREAMBLE
\LetLtxMacro{\DIFOdelbegin}{\DIFdelbegin} %DIF PREAMBLE
\LetLtxMacro{\DIFOdelend}{\DIFdelend} %DIF PREAMBLE
\DeclareRobustCommand{\DIFaddbegin}{\DIFOaddbegin \let\includegraphics\DIFaddincludegraphics} %DIF PREAMBLE
\DeclareRobustCommand{\DIFaddend}{\DIFOaddend \let\includegraphics\DIFOincludegraphics} %DIF PREAMBLE
\DeclareRobustCommand{\DIFdelbegin}{\DIFOdelbegin \let\includegraphics\DIFdelincludegraphics} %DIF PREAMBLE
\DeclareRobustCommand{\DIFdelend}{\DIFOaddend \let\includegraphics\DIFOincludegraphics} %DIF PREAMBLE
\LetLtxMacro{\DIFOaddbeginFL}{\DIFaddbeginFL} %DIF PREAMBLE
\LetLtxMacro{\DIFOaddendFL}{\DIFaddendFL} %DIF PREAMBLE
\LetLtxMacro{\DIFOdelbeginFL}{\DIFdelbeginFL} %DIF PREAMBLE
\LetLtxMacro{\DIFOdelendFL}{\DIFdelendFL} %DIF PREAMBLE
\DeclareRobustCommand{\DIFaddbeginFL}{\DIFOaddbeginFL \let\includegraphics\DIFaddincludegraphics} %DIF PREAMBLE
\DeclareRobustCommand{\DIFaddendFL}{\DIFOaddendFL \let\includegraphics\DIFOincludegraphics} %DIF PREAMBLE
\DeclareRobustCommand{\DIFdelbeginFL}{\DIFOdelbeginFL \let\includegraphics\DIFdelincludegraphics} %DIF PREAMBLE
\DeclareRobustCommand{\DIFdelendFL}{\DIFOaddendFL \let\includegraphics\DIFOincludegraphics} %DIF PREAMBLE
%DIF END PREAMBLE EXTENSION ADDED BY LATEXDIFF

\begin{document}

\title{Precipitation Pattern in the Western Himalayas revealed by Four Datasets}
\Author[1,2]{Hong}{Li}
\Author[3]{Jan Erik}{Haugen}
\DIFaddbegin \Author[2]{Chong-Yu}{Xu}
\DIFaddend \affil[1]{Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, Norway}
\affil[2]{University of Oslo, Norway}
\affil[3]{Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Norway}

%% The [] brackets identify the author with the corresponding affiliation. 1, 2, 3, etc. should be inserted.
\runningtitle{TEXT}
\runningauthor{TEXT}
\correspondence{Hong Li (lihong2291@gmail.com)}
\received{}
\pubdiscuss{} %% only important for two-stage journals
\revised{}
\accepted{}
\published{}
\firstpage{1}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
\DIFaddbegin
Data scarcity is the biggest problem for scientific research related to hydrology and climate studies in the Great Himalayas Region. High quality precipitation data are difficult to obtain due to sparse network, cold climate and high heterogeneity in topography. \DIFadd{In} this paper, \DIFadd{we} examine four datasets \DIFadd{in Northern India of the Western Himalayas:} interpolated gridded data based on \DIFadd{gauge} observations (IMD, 1$^{\circ}\times$1$^{\circ}$ and APHRODITE, 0.25$^{\circ}\times$0.25$^{\circ}$), reanalysis data (ERA-interim, 0.75$^{\circ}\times$0.75$^{\circ}$) and high resolution simulation by a regional climate model (WRF, 0.15$^{\circ}\times$0.15$^{\circ}$). The four datasets show a similar spatial pattern and temporal variation during the period 1981-2007, though the absolute values vary significantly (497-819 mm/year). The differences are particularly large in July and August at the windward slopes and high elevation areas. Overall, the datasets show \DIFadd{that the} summer is getting wetter and \DIFadd{the} winter is getting drier, though most of the trends in monthly precipitation are not significant. Trend analysis of summer and winter precipitation at every grids confirms the changes. \DIFadd{Wetter summers} will result in more and bigger floods at the downstream areas. \DIFadd{Warmer and drier winters will} result in less glaciers accumulation. All the datasets show consistency \DIFadd{in the period 1981-2007} and can give a spatial overview of the precipitation in the region. \DIFadd{Comparing with the Bhuntar gauge data, the WRF dataset gives the best estimates of extreme precipitation. To conclude,} we recommend the APHRODITE dataset and the WRF dataset for hydrological studies for their \DIFadd{improved spatial variation which match the scale of hydrological processes as well as accuracy in extreme precipitation for flood simulation.}
\DIFaddend
\end{abstract}

\introduction 
\DIFaddbegin
The Great Himalayas Region is the largest cryosphere outside the polar areas and the source of many rivers which supply water to more than 800 million people \citep{Hegdahl2016, Li2015}. The local population depends \DIFadd{mainly} on rivers for drinking water, hygiene, industry, fishing, \DIFadd{but also for hydro-power generation and agriculture, which is one of main sectors of local economy} \citep{Menegoz2013}. Therefore, \DIFadd{precipitation is very important to the local society and welfare of the local people. Climate change has significant impacts on water security, where mitigation and adaption to climate change are more challenging in this area due to poverty.}
\newline{}\newline{}
Precipitation is one of the most important elements in meteorology and hydrology. \DIFadd{Precipitation measurements at gauges are usually used as benchmark data to compare with other datasets. They are often believed to be the most reliable and accurate data. However, there are fewer gauges available in this area compared to other areas in the world. Therefore, it is tricky to look at spatial variability based on gauge data. Besides, quality of measurements is rarely high due to harsh climate and complex environment. Additionally, manual errors are very common in developing countries. These errors include, for example, error in gauge location, missing the unit of data as well as wrong position of the decimal point. Last but not least, gauge data are usually hard to obtain due to data policy and political conflict in some countries.}
\newline{}\newline{}
In recent years, with development of space-borne measurements and computing technologies, gridded precipitation datasets have been widely generated and attract much interest. Compared to \DIFadd{measurements at traditional gauge}, gridded data \DIFadd{can} cover a large area, sometimes even the globe, and disclose spatial variability \DIFadd{at a continuous surface}. Additionally, gridded data are usually produced by researchers for scientific purposes and they are free accessible to scientific research. \DIFadd{Therefore, gridded data} have been extensively used, particularly where high quality \textit{in situ} measurements are not available.
\newline{}\newline{}%current state at this area of precipitation data
There have been quite a few studies about precipitation over the Great Himalayas Region \citep{Yatagai2012, Menegoz2013, Palazzi2013}. The available gridded data fall into four types: satellite data, \DIFadd{interpolation of gauge observations}, reanalysis and model simulation. However, all \DIFadd{estimates} are generally very uncertain due to the complex climate dynamics and local topography, and precipitation rates differ widely among the four types, even among different products of the same type. The satellite \DIFadd{images} show discrepancies due to platforms and characteristics of sensors. Reflectance from land surface, particularly snow and ice, can cause distinctive biases \citep{Yin2008}. The interpolated observations are usually believed the most reliable. However, great cautions have to be paid when using such data due to inadequacy of interpolating methods and unavoidable inferiors inherited from gauge measurements. For example, underestimation of precipitation could be 58\% of annual total precipitation in the cold Alaska region due to wind, wetting loss and trace precipitation \citep{Yang1998}. High resolution climate models provide an alternative perspective and the models are competitive in aspect of high spatio-temporal resolution, identification of precipitation forms \citep{Menegoz2013}, \DIFadd{and internal} consistency \DIFadd{between climate parameters}. On the other hand, the simulated data may misrepresent the reality and suffer from inadequacy of boundary and forcing conditions. Reanalysis data are a combination of observations from many sources and dynamic models, but users should be cautious because of continuous changes in observing systems and systematic \DIFadd{model errors} \citep{Dee2011}. Additionally, uncertainties in reanalysis data are difficult to understand and quantify \citep{Dee2011}. The weaknesses and strength of each type are summarized in Table \ref{TableProCon}.
\newline{}\newline{}
\DIFadd{In this study, we select four datasets from various sources, i.e. interpolation of gauge observations, reanalysis and model simulations in Northern India of the Western Himalaya as well as measurements at one rain gauge. Due to differences in availability, a common analysis is based on daily data in a long period of 27 years (1981-2007). To our knowledge, this} is the first of its kind in this region in aspect of number of datasets and data length. The purpose is to compare the datasets and to find their similarity and difference, as well as implications \DIFadd{for further use} in hydrological studies.
\DIFaddend
\section{Study Area}
\DIFaddbegin
The study area lies in the western part of the Indian Himalayan Region (Figure \ref{fStudy}). The highest point is 7677 meters above sea level (m a.s.l.), located in the north-eastern region. The low elevation part lies in the south-western region, which adjoins Pakistan. The climate is affected by monsoon and western disturbance. In summer, warm moisture from the Indian Ocean moves northwards and turns \DIFadd{westward} when it hits the high mountains. This interaction brings plenty of precipitation and \DIFadd{daily precipitation can be more than 200 mm \citep{Purohit2016}}. Precipitation at high mountains usually falls as snow in winter. Along the course of the moist wind, precipitation decreases from east to west. In winter, the climate is controlled by western turbulence. The mid-latitude low pressure systems bring some snowfall \citep{Menegoz2013}, but winter is generally quite dry, especially in the coldest region. In this study, seasons are referred based on northern meteorological seasons (spring: March to May; summer: June to August; \DIFadd{autumn: September to November; winter}: December to February).
\newline{}\newline{}
This area is the headwater of the Indus River and the Ganges River, which are transboundary among China, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Additionally, these two rivers have very high hydropower potential. How to explore hydropower is continuously negotiated among the involved countries, which makes the study area very political sensitive.
\section{Data}
\DIFaddbegin
\subsection{IMD dataset}\label{DataIMD}
The IMD dataset is produced by the India Meteorological Department for the whole India. \DIFadd{The time period is 1951-2007 and the spatial resolution is 1$^{\circ}\times$1$^{\circ}$.} The data are interpolated from gauge measurements by using the Shepard method \citep{shepard1968two}. \citet{rajeevan2006high} compare the IMD dataset with the Variability Analysis of Surface Climate Observations (VASClimo) dataset and conclude that the IMD dataset is more accurate in terms of spatial variation. The IMD dataset has been extensively used in climate related research and applications, such as validation of climate models \citep{Bollasina2011, Wiltshire2014} and monsoon variability and predictions \citep{Goswami2006}.
\newline{}\newline{}
The number of used gauges varies during the period as well as \DIFadd{spatially} across the region. \DIFadd{The average} number of gauges per grid point is 2.99 ranging from 0.2 to 4.4 \citep{rajeevan2006high}. Spatially, more gauges are used in the central south; less gauges near the borders of India and in the northern part. No gauge measurements are available near the latitude of 35.5$^{\circ}$N and \DIFadd{northward}.
\subsection{APHRODITE dataset}
The APHRODITE (Asian Precipitation—Highly Resolved Observational Data Integration Towards Evaluation of Water Resources) dataset is interpolated by the Sphere map method based on data collected at 5,000–12,000 gauges \citep{Yatagai2012}. The interpolated parameter is the precipitation anomaly or ratio, instead of the precipitation amount \citep{Yatagai2012}
. Elevation corrections are considered by a weighting function, which is based on the angular distance with considering topography \citep{Yatagai2012}. The dataset covers Asia over the period of 1951-2007. Different versions of the APHRODITE dataset have been used to determine of Asian monsoon precipitation change, hydrological modelling \citep{Pechlivanidis2015, Xu2016}, verification of high-resolution model simulations and satellite precipitation estimates \citep{Kamiguchi2010}. In this research, we use the latest version (V1101) for monsoon Asia at a spatial resolution of 0.25$^{\circ}\times$0.25$^{\circ}$ \citep{Dimri2013}. The APHRODITE dataset uses the largest number of \DIFadd{gauge} observations among interpolated products, and is believed to be one of the most realistic precipitation datasets for Asia \citep{Menegoz2013}.
\subsection{ERA-interim dataset}
The ERA-interim dataset is the precipitation product of the ERA-Interim \citep{Dee2011}, which is a spatially and temporally complete \DIFadd{dataset} of multiple climate variables at high spatial and temporal resolution. The data we use here are on a Gaussian grid (with a resolution of 0.7$\times$0.7$^{\circ}$ at the Equator) with a 3-hour time resolution, and aggregated to daily time step. The ERA-Interim is \DIFadd{a} global atmospheric reanalysis \DIFadd{dataset} produced by the ECMWF (European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) \footnote{The next generation reanalysis, ERA5, featuring a higher horizontal resolution (\texttildelow 31 km) and a 10-member ensemble approach for uncertainty estimates, is released by the end of 2017. See e.g. \url{http://www.ecmwf.int/en/newsletter/147/news/era5-reanalysis-production}}. The dataset dates back to 1979 and is updated with approximately \DIFadd{one} month delay from real-time. The data assimilation system is based on a 2006 release of the IFS (Cy31r2) \citep{Dee2011}. This dataset has been widely used as boundary and forcing conditions for regional climate models \citep{Dimri2013, Katragkou2015}.
\subsection{WRF dataset}
The WRF dataset is generated by using a regional climate model, the Weather Research {\&} Forecasting Model (v3.7.1). The climate model is a limited-area, non-hydrostatic, primitive-equation model with multiple options for various physical parameterization schemes. The model has been used in climate simulation in Asia and other areas \citep{Maussion2011, li2016evaluating}. \DIFadd{Here we use Thompson scheme for microphysics, CAM for short and long wave radiation, the Noah Land-Surface scheme, Mellor-Yamada-Janjic TKE for planetary boundary-layer and Kain-Fritsch (new Eta) for convection. The model is forced by 6-hourly ERA-interim reanalysis data}. To avoid error at boundary edges and to facilitate further hydrological modelling work, we setup the model at a very large domain (59-91$^{\circ}$E, 9-46$^{\circ}$N). The spatial resolution is around 16 km, \DIFadd{where topography and land use are aggregated from data with accuracy of 10 meters}. They are preprocessed by using the WRF Preprocessing System (WPS). We divide the atmosphere into 30 vertical layers with model top pressure 50 hPa. \DIFadd{The height of the lowest model level varies between 15 and 27 meters depending on the surface pressure. The whole simulation period is from 1979 to 2007, and the period 1979-1980 is used as model spin up. Due to long model running time, we restart the model around every five years.} Model setup is summarized in Table \ref{WRFsetting} and the whole setting is a supplementary file.
\DIFadd{
\subsection{Gauge data}
The rain gauge Bhuntar lies in a valley at a small town in the state of Himachal Pradesh, India (Figure \ref{fStudy}). The Bhuntar gauge is only 400 meters down the confluence of the Parvati River with the Beas River. The altitude of the gauge is 1080 m a.s.l., and both precipitation and discharge data are used in this study. Annual precipitation is 921 mm/year based on data from 1981 to 2007 with most rain falls in July and August. Temperature is rarely below 0$^{\circ}$C , and only minimum temperature is occasionally below 0$^{\circ}$C in winters. The precipitation data have been used in hydrological modelling research for the Beas Basin \citep{Li2014b}.%A precipitation correction factor is used in the HBV model for the whole Beas Basin. The precipitation factor is 1.06, which means at used rainfall is actually 1.06 times of the input precipitation. It give a hint that the undercatch is about 6\% for the Beas Basin.          
}
\subsection{Discharge}
Three discharge series are selected to cross validate water balance. They are respectively Pandoh (downstream), Bhuntar (middle stream) and Manali (upstream). \DIFadd{These stations are operated by Central Water Commission regional office in India.} The catchments are located in the Beas basin, which is a main tributary of the Indus River in Northern India (Figure \ref{fStudy}). The catchments are nested from upstream to downstream. The purpose is to reflect precipitation data at various elevations within a hydrological scale. Runoff is considerably influenced from glacier melting \citep{Li2014b}. According to the 0.5 km MODIS-based Global Land Cover Climatology by the USGS Land Cover Institute (\url{https://landcover.usgs.gov/global_climatology.php}), coverage of snow and ice is 16\% in the Pandoh catchment, 24\% in the Bhuntar catchment and 21\% in the Manali catchment. The discharge data have been manually quality controlled and missing data \DIFadd{are} filled by discharge anomaly. \DIFadd{Discharge measurements are more qualified than precipitation in the snow and ice dominated area \citep{Henn2015, Kretzschmar2016}. Therefore, the quality of runoff simulation can infer by the forcing precipitation data. \citet{li2016evaluating} use the WRF-Hydro (v3.5.1) modeling system in the Beas Basin, and they find that the distribution of simulated daily discharge values agrees well with observations, which reversely confirms the precipitation simulations.}
\subsection{Evaporation}
The MODIS Global Evapotranspiration Project (MOD16) (\url{http://www.ntsg.umt.edu/project/modis/mod16.php}) is selected to reveal actual evaporation. The MODIS project is started in 2000, and has a short overlap period with the study period. Additionally, part of the catchments is covered by permanent snow and ice and the sensors cannot work well on this type surface. Therefore, we use annual mean amounts of 2000 to 2013 to reduce uncertainties. The missing ratios of annual mean actual evaporation are 22\% for the Pandoh catchment, 32\% for the Bhuntar catchment and 31\% for the Manali catchment.
\DIFaddend
\section{Results}
\DIFaddbegin
\subsection{Spatial variations}
The four datasets show similar spatial pattern of \DIFadd{mean} annual precipitation (Figure \ref{FigAnnualSpatial}). The highest precipitation is located at the foothill of the mountains and stretched from southeast to northwest. Visually, the high precipitation belt (the foothills of the mountains and the southeastern corner) is most clearly shown by the WRF dataset. The spatial variability increases from the IMD dataset to the WRF dataset. Their coefficients of variation are respectively 0.5 for the IMD data, 0.6 for the ERA-interim data, 0.7 for the APHRODITE data and 1.1 for the WRF data. \DIFadd{The density curves of mean annual precipitation values in all grid points (Figure \ref{annual_Spatial_hist}) and the statistics of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (Table \ref{TableKS}) show the variabilities and the differences among the datasets more clearly.}  
\newline{}\newline{} % IMD and APHRODITE as the interpolated observations
Both the IMD and APHRODITE datasets \DIFadd{are interpolated} from \DIFadd{observations at gauges}. However, the APHRODITE dataset shows a rain belt at the mountains' foothills much better. Additionally, the APHRODITE dataset shows much lower \DIFadd{estimates} (less than 300 mm/year) at the north-eastern corner. This area is quite high, with mean elevation at \DIFadd{4650 m} a.s.l. and elevation ranges from 906 to 7677 m a.s.l. The temperature is -2.35 $^\circ$C of annual mean and as low as -16.81 $^\circ$C in January \citep[AphroTemp,][]{Yatagai2012}. The reason for this low precipitation area is \DIFadd{that the APHRODITE dataset uses} more gauges, particularly also observations from Nepal, Bhutan and China \citep{Yatagai2012}. These gauges have undercatch problems, which means rain gauges could only catch part of snowfall due to wind and disturbance. In contrast, the IMD dataset uses only the gauges at the low valley area of India and \DIFadd{extends} to north by interpolation \citep{rajeevan2006high}. Eventually, the APHRODITE dataset has the lowest annual amount, only 61\% of the IMD dataset.
\newline{}\newline{}%% ERA-interim and WRF
The ERA-interim and WRF datasets are products with different dynamical models. The ERA-interim data and the WRF data are similar in terms of annual total amount (ERA-interim: 718 mm/year, WRF: 688 mm/year) and spatial pattern, partially due to the fact that in this area the observations that are assimilated into the data assimilation system are sparse and unevenly distributed. The WRF data are more realistic than the ERA-interim data due to \DIFadd{finer} spatial resolution, especially in complex topography areas \citep{Menegoz2013, Dimri2013}.
\newline{}\newline{}
The effects of location and topography are shown in Figure \ref{SmallBox}. The summer precipitation \DIFadd{changes dramatically}. Over the high flat plateau, precipitation decreases with latitude since the strength of \DIFadd{the monsoon} decreases with distance from its source. As the monsoon gets closer to the mountains, precipitation starts to increase. As the air parcel is lifted to high elevation, climate gets dry and cold. The winter precipitation occurs mainly along the \DIFadd{upslope}. The magnitude is also small and decreased along the path of \DIFadd{the winter monsoon}. The highest precipitation occurs in the windward of the \DIFadd{upslope} region, but it is 0.5 or 1.5 degree (around 55-110 km) far away from the mountains in summer. \citet{Bookhagen2006} analyze a decade of TRMM data and also find the highest annual precipitation is offset by a few 10s of km south of either high topography or relief. This offset has been found only over tall and broad mountain regions rather than narrow mountain peaks \citep{Dimri2013a}.
\newline{}\newline{}
\DIFadd{The differences among the datasets are more obvious in summer at the mountain foot. The WRF dataset gives much more precipitation (700 mm/month) in July and August at the mountain foot, almost two times of other datasets (300 mm/month). This is reported as a moisture bias in summer \citep{Srinivas2013, li2016evaluating}.} It is often cited as orographic bias which describes as strong over-prediction of precipitation rates along windward slopes while predicted snowfall lies under measured values along leeward slopes \citep{Maussion2011}.
\subsection{Temporal variations and changes} \label{temporal_change}
The inter-annual patterns are very similar as indicated by high correlations between pairs of datasets, shown in Table \ref{TableCorr}. The correlation between the IMD and APHRODITE datasets is the highest, reaching 0.91. The WRF dataset has low correlation with all other datasets. Spatially, the four datasets show a similar seasonal distribution, and the WRF dataset has the highest variability (Figure \ref{SeasonSpatial}). The intra-annual cycle is also similar as shown in Figure \ref{MonPrec}. The WRF and APHRODITE datasets have respectively the highest and lowest precipitation in summer. 
\newline{}\newline{}
To look at changes over time, we select the Theil-Sen median method to calculate trend due to its robustness and the non-parametric Mann-Kendall test for the significance test. The trend analysis and significance test are done for areal mean of each month (Figure \ref{MonPrec}), and every individual grid for summer (Figure \ref{SumPrecTrend} and \ref{SumPrecTrend_hist}) and winter (Figure \ref{WinPrecTrend} and \ref{WinPrecTrend_hist}). The figures show increase in summer precipitation and decrease in winter precipitation, although both increase and decrease exist in each dataset. Three of the areal mean trends (May by the WRF dataset; June by the IMD and ERA-interim datasets) are statistically significant at the 95\% confidence level. The spatial distribution of trends in summer precipitation varies a lot. Most decreasing trends of winter precipitation occurs at the northern part. Approximately 10\% grids are significant at the 10\% confidence level.
\newline{}\newline{}
It is difficult to conclude why Northern India of the Western Himalayas shows an increase in summer precipitation. However, \citet{Bollasina2011} finds the same increasing monsoon precipitation in Northern India, whereas decreasing in the Central Asia. They use a series of climate model experiments, and conclude that such pattern is a robust outcome of a slowdown of the tropical meridional overturning circulation, which could be attributed mainly to human-influenced aerosol emissions. The trends will continue and become more significant with time if greenhouse gas emission continues as usual. Such trends would lead to strong negative mass balance conditions of glaciers, which is discussed in the next section.
\DIFaddend
\section{Discussions}
\DIFaddbegin
\subsection{Comparison gridded precipitation datasets with gauge data}
\DIFadd{
To compare the gridded datasets with measurements at the Bhuntar gauge, we extract the time series at the nearest point to the Bhuntar gauge. We look at annual precipitation (Figure \ref{FigBhuntarAnnual}), monthly anomaly  (Figure \ref{FigBhuntarMonth}) as well as extreme precipitation, i.e. annual maximum daily precipitation (Table \ref{TableExBhuntar}). As shown in Figure \ref{FigBhuntarAnnual}, all gridded datasets are comparable with the Bhuntar gauge data. The interpolated datasets, IMD and APHRODITE are quantitatively closest to the Bhuntar gauge data. The ERA-interim and WRF datasets generally give two or three times higher precipitation than the Bhuntar gauge data. Figure \ref{FigBhuntarMonth} shows the differences are mainly from March to July in the WRF dataset, and July and August in the ERA-interim dataset. In addition, the WRF dataset shows large variations from February to June, and the ERA-interim dataset shows large variations in July and August. Table \ref{TableExBhuntar} shows the statistics of annual maximum daily  precipitation. Notably, the WRF dataset gives the closest estimate to the Bhuntar data in five quantiles, and the APHRODITE dataset gives the best estimate of the maximum precipitation over the whole period.    
}
\subsection{Comparison gridded precipitation datasets with runoff data}
The annual actual evaporation from MODIS data is 614 mm/year at the Pandoh catchment, 639 mm/year at the Bhuntar catchment and 649 mm/year at the Manali catchment. The values are too high compared with 64mm/year at the Pandoh catchment for the period from 1990 to 2004 calculated by \citet{KUMAR2007} using potential evaporation, mean and \DIFadd{maximum} temperature. The Pandoh catchement covers the lower and middle parts, and should have the highest evaporation due to warm climate among three catchments. The MODIS data are not qualified at the catchments and at small catchment scales for the study period.
\newline{}\newline{}
The precipitation and runoff relationship is shown in Figure \ref{acc_prec_disc} as accumulation of monthly precipitation and runoff. Though the lines have different slopes, but they share very similar linear relationships. They are consistent in terms of temporal changes. Errors are systematic within each dataset. Runoff is generally less than precipitation due to evaporation loss. However, runoff could possibly exceed precipitation at glacierised catchment due to glacier melting. Runoff is most more than precipitation in the Manali catchment. In the Bhuntar catchment, only the ERA-interim data show less runoff than precipitation. All datasets show less runoff than precipitation in the Pandoh catchment. Precipitation is definitely underestimated at higher elevation area, especially in the Manali catchment. \citet{Azam2014} reconstruct annual mass balance of Chhota Shigri glacier since 1969. The Chhota Shigri glacier lies in the Western Himalaya, India and it is representative in terms of mass balance for the Western Himalayas glaciers \citep{Azam2014}. The mass loss rates are 0.36$\rpm$0.36 for 1969 to 1985 and 0.57$\rpm$0.36 m water equivalent per year (m w.e.a\textsuperscript{-1}) for 2001 to 2015. The runoff contribution from glacier melting is only 3306 mm within 29 years with assumptions of 20\% glacier coverage and -0.57 m w.e.a\textsuperscript{-1}.
\subsection{Implications for glaciers}
\DIFadd{In the Great Himalayas Region, there are many glaciers and they are key indicators of regional climate change and water resources.} Temperature in combination with precipitation controls survival of glaciers. Therefore, we also look at changes in temperature by comparing the temperature results by the same simulation of the WRF precipitation dataset for the first and last five years, namely 1981-1985 and 2003-2007. We skip the trend analysis and significance test, because it is already well known that temperature is increasing fast in the Great Himalayas Region since 1980s \citep{REN2017148}. Temperature is well measured and simulated. Therefore, there is no need to go through many datasets. We are particularly interested in temperature at the equilibrium line altitude (ELA). As \DIFadd{the slope of the regression lines} shown in Figure \ref{Tem_HGT}, the WRF model is able to reproduce the lapse rates. Between the two five-years, temperature increases 0.91$^\circ$C in winter and 0.26$^\circ$C in summer. Such changes lead to \DIFadd{an increase in} the elevation of \DIFadd{the freezing point (0$^\circ$C) of} 125 m in winter and 32 m in summer. As shown in Section \ref{temporal_change}, precipitation overall decreases in winter. \DIFadd{In combination} with increasing temperature, \DIFadd{this} is an unfavourable condition for the glaciers \DIFadd{with} less accumulation and faster melting. Moreover, the area between 4900 m a.s.l., which is the equilibrium line altitude (ELA) of the Chhota Shigri glacier \citep[see][Figure 2]{AZAM2012}, and 5200 m a.s.l. is large. Therefore, as the climate gets warmer, the ELA will further move up. Such a nonlinear characteristic of elevation distribution results in a potential large reduction in the accumulation area and small storage buffer of permanent snow and ice.

\DIFaddend
\section{Conclusions}
\DIFaddbegin
Data scarcity is \DIFadd{a major} problem for hydrological research in the Great Himalayas Region. High quality precipitation data are difficult to obtain due to the sparse network, cold climate and high heterogeneity in topography. This paper investigates the spatial and temporal pattern of precipitation in this region based on \DIFadd{four datasets:} interpolated gridded data based on gauge observations (IMD, 1$^{\circ}\times$1$^{\circ}$ and APHRODITE, 0.25$^{\circ}\times$0.25$^{\circ}$), reanalysis data (ERA-interim, 0.75$^{\circ}\times$0.75$^{\circ}$) and high resolution simulation by a regional climate model (WRF, 0.15$^{\circ}\times$0.15$^{\circ}$) in Northern India of the Western Himalayas during the period 1981-2007.
\newline{}\newline{}
The four datasets are similar in terms of spatial pattern and temporal variation and changes, though the absolute values \DIFadd{vary} a lot (497-819 mm/year) due to the data source and the methods of data generation. The differences are particularly large in July and August and at the windward slopes and the high elevation areas. The datasets reveal that summer \DIFadd{gets} wetter and winter \DIFadd{gets} drier, though most of the trends are not statistically significant. \DIFadd{Wetter} summer results in more and bigger floods at the downstream areas. \DIFadd{Warmer and drier} winter results in less glaciers accumulation. The four datasets are able to give a good overview of spatial pattern and temporal changes. \DIFadd{Comparison with measurements at the Bhuntar gauge shows that the WRF and APHRODITE datasets give the best estimate of extreme precipitation amounts. To conclude, the APHRODITE and WRF datasets are recommended for hydrological studies due to their improved spatial variations which match the scale of hydrological processes as well as accuracy in extreme precipitation for flood simulation}. However, careful local correction is definitely required.
\begin{acknowledgements}
This  study  is  funded  by  the  Research  Council  of  Norway  through  the research program NORKLIMA under grant the project 216546. We thank India Meteorological Department and Sonia Grover at Water Resources Division at TERI (India), European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts and the APHRODITE (\url{http://www.chikyu.ac.jp/precip/english/products.html}) and the research program JOINTINDNOR under grant the project 203867 for provision of data. We thank Oskar Landgren at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute for help in modelling and data analysis as well as review of the manuscript. The model simulation was done when the first author worked at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute.
\end{acknowledgements}
\section*{Conflict of Interest}
No conflict of interest.
\section{Code availability}
\section{Data availability}
The ERA-interim and APRODITE data are available from the data provider sites. The WRF data are available via \url{https://archive.norstore.no/pages/public/about.jsf}.
\authorcontribution{Hong Li: model simulation, data analysis and writing. Jan Erik Haugen: model simulation, \DIFadd{analysis of results}, review and revision. Chong-Yu Xu: review and revision.}
\bibliographystyle{copernicus}
\bibliography{library}
%% \citep{jones90}|               & Jones et al. (1990)
%% \citep{p{jones90}|               & (Jones et al., 1990)
%% \citep{p{jones90,jones93}|       & (Jones et al., 1990, 1993)
%% \citep{p[p.~32]{jones90}|        & (Jones et al., 1990, p.~32)
%% \citep{p[e.g.,][]{jones90}|      & (e.g., Jones et al., 1990)
%% \citep{p[e.g.,][p.~32]{jones90}| & (e.g., Jones et al., 1990, p.~32)
%% \citep{author{jones90}|          & Jones et al.
%% \citep{year{jones90}|            & 1990
\clearpage
\section{Figures}
\DIFaddbegin
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth, keepaspectratio]{fig/StudyArea.png}
\caption{\DIFadd{Location map of the study area, the Bhuntar rain gauge and three discharge stations.}}\label{fStudy}
\end{figure}
\DIFaddend

\DIFaddbegin
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig/AnnualSpatial}
\caption{\DIFadd{Mean annual precipitation (1981-2007) of the four datasets (from left IMD gridded observations, ERA-interim reanalysis, APHRODITE gridded observations and WRF regional climate model simulation) and terrain height of the study area(right).}}\label{FigAnnualSpatial}
\end{figure}
\DIFaddend

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width = 1\textwidth]{fig/AnnualPrecipitation_hist.png}
\caption{\DIFadd{Density curves of mean annual precipitation values in all grid points.}}\label{annual_Spatial_hist}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.8\textwidth]{fig/SmallBox_done.png}
\caption{\DIFadd{Precipitation (mm/month) for July-August (upper) and November-December (lower) and  in three selected longitude bands from west to east (left to right) plotted against latitude. The longitude value of each band is indicated above the figures. The corresponding terrain height (m) in black is displays at the right axis.}}\label{SmallBox}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width = 0.8\textwidth]{fig/Tp_SpatialSeason_done}
\caption{Seasonal contributions (in \%) to annual precipitation. From left to right spring (MAM), summer (JJA), autumn (SON) and winter (DJF). From bottom to top WRF regional climate model, APHRODITE gridded observations, ERA-interim reanalysis and IMD gridded observations.}\label{SeasonSpatial}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 1\textwidth]{fig/MonPrec}
\caption{Monthly precipitation (left) and the trend during 1981-2007 (right).}\label{MonPrec}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 1\textwidth]{fig/plot_SumSpatialTrend_done.png}
\caption{Trend (mm/month/year) of summer precipitation.}\label{SumPrecTrend}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 1\textwidth]{fig/SumSpatialTrend_hist.png}
\caption{\DIFadd{Density curves of trends (mm/month/year) of summer precipitation in all grid points.}}\label{SumPrecTrend_hist}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 1\textwidth]{fig/plot_WinSpatialTrend_done.png}
\caption{Trend (mm/month/year) of winter precipitation.}\label{WinPrecTrend}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 1\textwidth]{fig/WinSpatialTrend_hist.png}
\caption{\DIFadd{Density curves of trends (mm/month/year) of winter precipitation in all grid points.}}\label{WinPrecTrend_hist}
\end{figure}

\DIFaddbegin
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig/Bhuntar_annual_pre}
\caption{\DIFadd{Annual precipitation at the Bhuntar gauge. Data at the nearest point to the Bhuntar gauge are extracted from the gridded datasets}}\label{FigBhuntarAnnual}
\end{figure}
\DIFaddend

\DIFaddbegin
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig/Bhuntar_month_pre}
\caption{\DIFadd{Monthly anomaly at the Bhuntar gauge. Data at the nearest point to the Bhuntar gauge are extracted from the gridded datasets.}}\label{FigBhuntarMonth}
\end{figure}
\DIFaddend


\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 1\textwidth]{fig/acc_prec_disc.png}
\caption{Accumulated precipitation and discharge.}\label{acc_prec_disc}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
 \includegraphics[keepaspectratio = true,width=1\linewidth]{fig/winterHGT_T2_WRF.png}
\caption{Mean temperature and its regression lines for the periods of 1981-1985 and 2003-2007 by the WRF simulation.}\label{Tem_HGT}
\end{figure}


\clearpage
\section{Tables}
\DIFaddbegin
\begin{table}[htb]
\centering
\caption{Summary of weaknesses and strength of four types of gridded precipitation data.}\label{TableProCon}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!} {

\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
Data type & Strength & Weakness\\
\hline
\DIFadd{gauge} & \DIFadd{\makecell{ original ground measurements \\ long application }} & \DIFadd{\makecell{coarse distribution \\ undercatch of snow and rain due to wind \\ manual errors \\ high expense or unavailability due to political reasons }}\\
\hline
satellite & \makecell{ spatial observations \\ quality not affected by wind or other weather conditions } & \makecell{ dependence on platforms and sensors \\ bias caused by snow and ice } \\
\hline
interpolations & \makecell{ consistent with traditional ground observations } &  \makecell{ Inadequacy of interpolating methods \\ unavoidable inferiors inherited from gauge measurements } \\
\hline
output from climate models &  \makecell{ consistent with other meteorological parameters \\ possibility to measure uncertainties } &  \makecell{ inadequacy in algorithms, boundary and forcing } \\
\hline
reanalysis &  \makecell{ combination of modeling technique and many types of observations } &  \makecell{ changes in observation system \\ model error } \\
\hline
\end{tabular}

}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[htb]
\centering
\caption{The main settings of the WRF regional climate model. The complete setting are shown in supplementary file.}\label{WRFsetting}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
 \hline
 \multicolumn{2}{c}{Time and Domain}      \\ 
 \hline
 Period                   & 1979-2007         \\
 Region                   & 59-91 $^{\circ}$E, 9-46 $^{\circ}$N   \\
 \DIFadd{Horizontal grid spacing}  & \DIFadd{16 km}    \\
 Dimension                & (193, 241, 30)  \\
 Model top pressure       & 50 hPa      \\   
 \DIFadd{Height of the lowest level}       & 15-27 m     \\   
 \hline
 \multicolumn{2}{c}{Physics} \\
 \hline
 Microphysics 	          & Thompson scheme         \\
 Shortwave radiation                & CAM                    \\
 Longwave radiation                & CAM                     \\
 Surface-layer           & Monin-Obukhov (Janjic) scheme    \\
 Land surface            & Noah Land-Surface Mode  \\
 Planetary boundary layer           & Mellor-Yamada-Janjic TKE scheme  \\
 Cumulus	              & Kain-Fritsch (new Eta) scheme    \\
 \hline
 \multicolumn{2}{c}{Lateral boundaries}             \\
 \hline
 Forcing                & ERA-Interim 0.75$^\circ\times$0.75$^\circ$, 6 hourly\\
 \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[htb]
\centering
\DIFadd{
\caption{\DIFadd{P-value of the tailed Kolmogorov–Smirnov test on differences of on annual precipitation (mm/year) among the datasets. The p-value indicates strong evidence against the null hypothesis. It is typically to reject the null hypothesis, which is two datasets are the same here, when p-value is not greater than 0.05.}}\label{TableKS}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
\hline
 \backslashbox{Data}{Data} & IMD & ERA-interim & APHRODITE & WRF \\
 \hline
IMD              & -       & 5.4e-02 &  3.6e-11     &  3.7e-10 \\
ERA-interim      & 5.4e-02 & -       &  5.0e-11     &  2.5e-11 \\
APHRODITE        & 3.6e-11 & 5.0e-11 &  -           & <2.2e-16 \\
WRF              & 3.7e-10 & 2.5e-11 & <2.2e-16     &  -       \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[htb]
\centering
\caption{Pearson's correlation of annual precipitation series}\label{TableCorr}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
\hline
 \backslashbox{Data}{Data} & IMD & ERA-interim & APHRODITE & WRF \\
 \hline
IMD       & -    & 0.86 & 0.91     & \textit{0.64} \\
ERA-interim      & 0.86 & -    & 0.86     & \textit{0.64} \\
APHRODITE & 0.91 & 0.86 & -        & \textit{0.59} \\
WRF       & \textit{0.64} & \textit{0.54} & \textit{0.59}      & -   \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[htb]
\centering
\caption{\DIFadd{Statistics of annual maximum daily precipitation (mm/day) at the Bhuntar gauge. Data of the nearest point are extracted from the gridded datasets. Bold and italics indicates the value closest to the data of the Bhuntar gauge. }}\label{TableExBhuntar}
\DIFadd{
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccccc}
\hline
\backslashbox{Data}{quantiles} & minimum & 0.05 & 0.25 & median & 0.75 & 0.95 & maximum \\
\hline
Gauge & 38.0 & 41.1 & 57.8 & 69.6 & 82.2 & 104.3 & 106.0 \\
IMD & 26.4 & 30.2 & 36.1 & 52.1 & 67.3 & 116.8 & 147.3 \\
ERA& 59.2 &67.7&80.2& 94.0 &121.7&149.5&154.4 \\
APHRO&28.2&29.8&38.6&52.9& 58.0 &70.9& \textit{ \textbf{ 103.1 }} \\
WRF& \textit{ \textbf{ 43.5 }} & \textit{ \textbf{ 51.0 }} & \textit{ \textbf{ 57.3 }} & \textit{ \textbf{ 65.7 }} & \textit{ \textbf{ 78.3 }} & \textit{ \textbf{ 93.5 }} & 99.8 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}

\DIFaddend

\clearpage
\DIFaddbegin
\appendix
\section{Appendix}
\setcounter{figure}{0}
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{A\arabic{figure}}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 1\textwidth]{fig/resample_AnnualSpatial.png}
\caption{\DIFadd{Precipitation of the gridded datasets and terrain height of the study area resampled to the IMD grid by bilinear interpolation.}}\label{FigAnnualSpatial_resample}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 1\textwidth]{fig/ncdc.png}
\caption{\DIFadd{Data missing rate in the National Climatic Data Center in the study areas.}}\label{Figncdc}
\end{figure}

\clearpage
\setcounter{table}{0}
\renewcommand{\thetable}{A\arabic{table}}
\begin{table}[htb]
\centering
\caption{\DIFadd{Statistics of the non-parametric Mann-Kendell test of precipitation.}}\label{TableAMK}
\DIFadd{
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
 Data& Trend (mm/year) & p-value \\
\hline
IMD         & -2.01  & 0.509     \\
ERA-interim & 0.86   & 0.994     \\
APHRODITE   & -3.59  & 0.098     \\
WRF         & -0.70  & 0.819     \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}



\DIFaddend\end{document}
