Articles | Volume 27, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1723-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1723-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
03 May 2023
Research article |
| 03 May 2023
| 03 May 2023
Water and energy budgets over hydrological basins on short and long timescales
Samantha Petch
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK
National Centre for Earth Observation, University of Reading, Reading, UK
Tristan Quaife
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK
National Centre for Earth Observation, University of Reading, Reading, UK
Robert P. King
Met Office, Exeter, UK
Keith Haines
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK
National Centre for Earth Observation, University of Reading, Reading, UK
Related authors
Samantha Petch, Liang Feng, Paul Palmer, Robert P. King, Tristan Quaife, and Keith Haines
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.173343481.12875858/v1, https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.173343481.12875858/v1, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The growth rate of atmospheric CO2 varies year to year, mainly due to land ecosystems. Understanding factors controlling the land carbon uptake is crucial. Our study examines the link between terrestrial water storage and the CO2 growth rate from 2002–2023, revealing a strong negative correlation. We highlight the key role of tropical forests, especially in tropical America, and assess how regional contributions shift over time.
Jozef Skákala, David Ford, Keith Haines, Amos Lawless, Matthew J. Martin, Philip Browne, Marcin Chrust, Stefano Ciavatta, Alison Fowler, Daniel Lea, Matthew Palmer, Andrea Rochner, Jennifer Waters, Hao Zuo, Deep S. Banerjee, Mike Bell, Davi M. Carneiro, Yumeng Chen, Susan Kay, Dale Partridge, Martin Price, Richard Renshaw, Georgy Shapiro, and James While
Ocean Sci., 21, 1709–1734, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-21-1709-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-21-1709-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
UK marine data assimilation (MDA) involves a closely collaborating research community. In this paper, we offer both an overview of the state of the art and a vision for the future across all of the main areas of UK MDA, ranging from physics to biogeochemistry to coupled DA. We discuss the current UK MDA stakeholder applications, highlight theoretical developments needed to advance our systems, and reflect upon upcoming opportunities with respect to hardware and observational missions.
Richard Essery, Giulia Mazzotti, Sarah Barr, Tobias Jonas, Tristan Quaife, and Nick Rutter
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3583–3605, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3583-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3583-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
How forests influence accumulation and melt of snow on the ground is of long-standing interest, but uncertainty remains in how best to model forest snow processes. We developed the Flexible Snow Model version 2 to quantify these uncertainties. In a first model demonstration, how unloading of intercepted snow from the forest canopy is represented is responsible for the largest uncertainty. Global mapping of forest distribution is also likely to be a large source of uncertainty in existing models.
Davi Mignac, Jennifer Waters, Daniel J. Lea, Matthew J. Martin, James While, Anthony T. Weaver, Arthur Vidard, Catherine Guiavarc'h, Dave Storkey, David Ford, Edward W. Blockley, Jonathan Baker, Keith Haines, Martin R. Price, Michael J. Bell, and Richard Renshaw
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3405–3425, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3405-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3405-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We describe major improvements of the Met Office's global ocean–sea ice forecasting system. The models and the way observations are used to improve the forecasts were changed, which led to a significant error reduction of 1 d forecasts. The new system performance in past conditions, where subsurface observations are scarce, was improved with more consistent ocean heat content estimates. The new system will be of better use for climate studies and will provide improved forecasts for end users.
Wolfgang Knorr, Matthew Williams, Tea Thum, Thomas Kaminski, Michael Voßbeck, Marko Scholze, Tristan Quaife, T. Luke Smallman, Susan C. Steele-Dunne, Mariette Vreugdenhil, Tim Green, Sönke Zaehle, Mika Aurela, Alexandre Bouvet, Emanuel Bueechi, Wouter Dorigo, Tarek S. El-Madany, Mirco Migliavacca, Marika Honkanen, Yann H. Kerr, Anna Kontu, Juha Lemmetyinen, Hannakaisa Lindqvist, Arnaud Mialon, Tuuli Miinalainen, Gaétan Pique, Amanda Ojasalo, Shaun Quegan, Peter J. Rayner, Pablo Reyes-Muñoz, Nemesio Rodríguez-Fernández, Mike Schwank, Jochem Verrelst, Songyan Zhu, Dirk Schüttemeyer, and Matthias Drusch
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2137–2159, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2137-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2137-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
When it comes to climate change, the land surface is where the vast majority of impacts happen. The task of monitoring those impacts across the globe is formidable and must necessarily rely on satellites – at a significant cost: the measurements are only indirect and require comprehensive physical understanding. We have created a comprehensive modelling system that we offer to the research community to explore how satellite data can be better exploited to help us capture the changes that happen on our lands.
Samantha Petch, Liang Feng, Paul Palmer, Robert P. King, Tristan Quaife, and Keith Haines
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.173343481.12875858/v1, https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.173343481.12875858/v1, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The growth rate of atmospheric CO2 varies year to year, mainly due to land ecosystems. Understanding factors controlling the land carbon uptake is crucial. Our study examines the link between terrestrial water storage and the CO2 growth rate from 2002–2023, revealing a strong negative correlation. We highlight the key role of tropical forests, especially in tropical America, and assess how regional contributions shift over time.
Simon Beylat, Nina Raoult, Cédric Bacour, Natalie Douglas, Tristan Quaife, Vladislav Bastrikov, Peter Julien Rayner, and Philippe Peylin
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-109, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-109, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Land surface models are important tools for understanding and predicting the land components of the carbon cycle. Atmospheric CO2 concentration data is a valuable source of information that can be used to improve the accuracy of these models. In this study, we present a statistical method named 4DEnVar to calibrate parameters of a land surface model using this data. We show that this method is easy to implement and more efficient and accurate than traditional methods.
Bethan L. Harris, Tristan Quaife, Christopher M. Taylor, and Phil P. Harris
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1019–1035, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1019-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1019-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The response of vegetation productivity to rainfall is a crucial process linking the water and carbon cycles and influencing the evolution of the climate system. However, there are many uncertainties in its representation in Earth system models. We show that the vegetation productivity responses to short-term rainfall events are very different between models due to their differing sensitivities to water availability. We also evaluate the models against a range of observational products.
Lee de Mora, Ranjini Swaminathan, Richard P. Allan, Jerry C. Blackford, Douglas I. Kelley, Phil Harris, Chris D. Jones, Colin G. Jones, Spencer Liddicoat, Robert J. Parker, Tristan Quaife, Jeremy Walton, and Andrew Yool
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 1295–1315, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1295-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1295-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the flux of carbon from the atmosphere into the land surface and ocean for multiple models and over a range of future scenarios. We did this by comparing simulations after the same change in the global-mean near-surface temperature. Using this method, we show that the choice of scenario can impact the carbon allocation to the land, ocean, and atmosphere. Scenarios with higher emissions reach the same warming levels sooner, but also with relatively more carbon in the atmosphere.
Bo Dong, Ross Bannister, Yumeng Chen, Alison Fowler, and Keith Haines
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4233–4247, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4233-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4233-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Traditional Kalman smoothers are expensive to apply in large global ocean operational forecast and reanalysis systems. We develop a cost-efficient method to overcome the technical constraints and to improve the performance of existing reanalysis products.
Ewan Pinnington, Javier Amezcua, Elizabeth Cooper, Simon Dadson, Rich Ellis, Jian Peng, Emma Robinson, Ross Morrison, Simon Osborne, and Tristan Quaife
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1617–1641, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1617-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1617-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Land surface models are important tools for translating meteorological forecasts and reanalyses into real-world impacts at the Earth's surface. We show that the hydrological predictions, in particular soil moisture, of these models can be improved by combining them with satellite observations from the NASA SMAP mission to update uncertain parameters. We find a 22 % reduction in error at a network of in situ soil moisture sensors after combining model predictions with satellite observations.
Irene Polo, Keith Haines, Jon Robson, and Christopher Thomas
Ocean Sci., 16, 1067–1088, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-16-1067-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-16-1067-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
AMOC variability controls climate and is driven by wind and buoyancy forcing in the Atlantic. Density changes there are expected to connect to tropical regions. We develop methods to identify boundary density profiles at 26° N which relate to the AMOC. We found that density anomalies propagate equatorward along the western boundary, eastward along the Equator and then poleward up the eastern boundary with 2 years lag between boundaries. Record lengths of more than 26 years are required.
Cited articles
Abolafia-Rosenzweig, R. and Livneh, B.: Remotely sensed ensemble of the water
cycle, Mendeley Data [data set], https://doi.org/10.17632/r24rdxt73j.3, 2020. a
Abolafia-Rosenzweig, R., Pan, M., Zeng, J., and Livneh, B.: Remotely sensed
ensembles of the terrestrial water budget over major global river basins: An
assessment of three closure techniques, Remote Sens. Environ., 252, 112191, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.112191, 2021. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h
Acker, J., Williams, R., Chiu, L., Ardanuy, P., Miller, S., Schueler, C.,
Vachon, P., and Manore, M.: Remote Sensing from Satellites, in: Reference
Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences, Elsevier,
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.09440-9, 2014. a
Adler, R. F., Huffman, G. J., Chang, A., Ferraro, R., Xie, P., Janowiak, J.,
Rudolf, B., Schneider, U., Curtis, S., Bolvin, D., Gruber, A., Susskind, J.,
P. Arkin, P., and Nelkin, E.: The version-2 Global Precipitation Climatology
Project (GPCP) monthly precipitation analysis (1979–present), J. Hydrometeorol., 4, 1147–1167,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1525-7541(2003)004<1147:TVGPCP>2.0.CO;2, 2003. a, b
Adler, R., Wang, J.-J., Sapiano, M., Huffman, G., Chiu, L., Xie, P. P., Ferraro, R., Schneider, U., Becker, A., Bolvin, D., Nelkin, E., Gu, G., and NOAA CDR Program: Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Climate Data Record (CDR), Version 2.3 (Monthly), National Centers for Environmental Information [data set], https://doi.org/10.7289/V56971M6, 2016b. a
Aires, F.: Combining Datasets of Satellite-Retrieved Products. Part I:
Methodology and Water Budget Closure, J. Hydrometeorol., 15, 1677–1691, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-13-0148.1, 2014. a, b
Chen, J., Tapley, B., Rodell, M., Seo, K., Wilson, C., Scanlon, B., and
Pokhrel, Y.: Basin-Scale River Runoff Estimation from GRACE Gravity
Satellites, Climate Models and In Situ Observations: a Case Study in the
Amazon Basin, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2020WR028032, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028032, 2020. a, b
Do, H. X., Gudmundsson, L., Leonard, M., and Westra, S.: The Global Streamflow Indices and Metadata Archive (GSIM) – Part 1: The production of a daily streamflow archive and metadata, Earth Syst. Sci. Data., 10, 765–785,
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-765-2018, 2018. a
Dong, B., Lenters, J. D., Hu, Q., Kucharik, C. J., Wang, T., Soylu, M. E., and Mykleby, P. M.: Decadal-Scale Changes in the Seasonal Surface Water Balance of the Central United States from 1984 to 2007, J. Hydrometeorol., 21, 1905–1927, 2020. a
Eicker, A., Forootan, E., Springer, A., and Longuevergne, L.: Supporting
Information for “Does GRACE see the terrestrial water cycle intensifying”?, J. Geophys. Res., 121, 733–745, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023808, 2015. a, b
FluxCom: Energy fluxes, http://fluxcom.org/, last access: 28 July 2021. a
Ghiggi, G., Humphrey, V., Seneviratne, S. I., and Gudmundsson, L.: GRUN: an observation-based global gridded runoff dataset from 1902 to 2014, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 11, 1655–1674, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1655-2019, 2019. a, b, c
GravIS: Gravity Information Service: Terrestrial water storage anomalies,
Helmholtz Centre, Potsdam, http://gravis.gfz-potsdam.de/land, last access: 1 August 2021. a
Hobeichi, S., Abramowitz, G., and Evans, J.: Conserving Land-Atmosphere Synthesis Suite (CLASS) v 1.1 (2019), NCI Data Catalogue [data set], https://doi.org/10.25914/5c872258dc183, 2019. a
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The physical science basis, in: Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ (last access: 12 October 2022), 2013. a
Jung, M.: FLUXCOM Global Land Energy Fluxes, FluxCom Data Portal [data set], https://doi.org/10.17871/FLUXCOM_EnergyFluxes_v1, 2018. a
Jung, M., Koirala, S., Weber, U., and Coauthors: The FLUXCOM ensemble of global land-atmosphere energy fluxes, Sci. Data, 6, 74, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0076-8, 2019. a, b, c
Kato, S., Rose, F. G., Rutan, D. A., Thorsen, T. E., Loeb, N. G., Doelling,
D. R., Huang, X., Smith, W. L., S, W., and Ham, S.-H.: Surface irradiances of
Edition 4.0 Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy
Balanced and Filled (EBAF) data product, J. Climate, 31, 4501–4527,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0523.1, 2018. a
Kim, H., Watanabe, S., Chang, E. C., Yoshimura, K., Hirabayashi, J.,
Famiglietti, J., and Oki, T.: Global Soil Wetness Project Phase 3 Atmospheric
Boundary Conditions (Experiment 1), DIAS – Data set, Data Integration and Analysis System [data set], https://doi.org/10.20783/DIAS.501, 2017. a
Landerer, F. and Swenson, S.: Accuracy of scaled GRACE terrestrial water
storage estimates, Water Resour. Res., 48, 1–11, 2012. a
L'Ecuyer, T., Beaudoing, H. K., Rodell, M., Olson, W., Lin, B., Kato, S.,
Clayson, C., Wood, E., Sheffield, J., Adler, R., Huffman, G., Bosilovich, M.,
Gu, G., Robertson, F., Houser, P. R., Chambers, D., Famiglietti, J. S.,
Fetzer, E., Liu, W. T., Gao, X., Schlosser, C., Clark, E., Lettenmaier,
D. P., and Hilburn, K.: The Observed State of the Energy Budget in the Early
Twenty-First Century, J. Climate, 28, 8319–8346, 2015. a, b, c, d, e, f
Lehmann, F., Vishwakarma, B. D., and Bamber, J.: How well are we able to close the water budget at the global scale?, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 35–54, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-35-2022, 2022. a, b
Liu, C., Allan, R. P., Mayer, M., Hyder, P., Loeb, N. G., Roberts, C. D.,
Valdivieso, M., Edwards, J. M., and Vidale, P.-L.: Evaluation of satellite and reanalysis-based global net surface energy flux and uncertainty estimates, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 6250–6272,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026616, 2017. a, b
Loeb, N. G., Su, W., Doelling, D., Wong, T., Minnis, P., Thomas, S., and
Miller, W.: Earth's top-of-atmosphere radiation budget, Comprehens. Remote Sens., 5, 67–84, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10367-7, 2016. a
Loeb, N., Doelling, D., Wang, H., Su, W., Nguyen, C., Corbett, J., Liang, L., Mitrescu, C., Rose, F., and Kato, S.: Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) Edition-4.0 Data Product (2018), NASA [data set], https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFTOA42Selection.jsp (last access: 18 February 2022), 2018. a
Long, D., Yang, Y., Wada, Y., Hong, Y., Liang, W., Chen, Y., Yong, B., Hou, A., Wei, J., and Chen, L.: Deriving scaling factors using a global hydrological model to restore GRACE total water storage changes for China's Yangtze River Basin, Remote Sens. Environ., 168, 177–193, 2015. a
Mayer, J., Mayer, M., Haimberger, L., and Liu., C.: Comparison of Surface
Energy Fluxes from Global to Local Scale, J. Climate, 35, 4551–4569,
2022. a
Munier, S. and Aires, F.: A new global method of satellite dataset merging and quality characterization constrained by the terrestrial water budget, Remote Sens. Environ., 205, 19–130, 2018. a
Munier, S., Aires, F., Schlaffer, S., Prigent, C., Papa, F., Maisongrande, P., and Pan, M.: Combining data sets of satellite-retrieved products for
basin-scale water balance study: 2. Evaluation on the Mississippi Basin and
closure correction model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 12100–12116, 2014. a, b
Pellet, V., Aires, F., Munier, S., Prieto, D., Jordá, G., Dorigo, W. A., Polcher, J., and Brocca, L.: Integrating multiple satellite observations into a coherent dataset to monitor the full water cycle – Application to the Mediterranean region, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 465–491,
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-465-2019, 2019. a, b
Petch, S.: sammypetch/Water-and-energy-budgets: v2, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7682197, 2023. a
Rodell, M., McWilliams, E. B., Famiglietti, J. S., Beaudoing, H. K., and Nigro, J.: Estimating evapotranspiration using an observation based terrestrial water budget, Hydrol. Process., 25, 4082–4092,
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8369, 2011. a
Rodell, M., Beaudoing, H., L'Ecuyer, T., Olson, W., Famiglietti, J., Houser,
P., Adler, R., Bosilovich, M., Clayson, C., Chambers, D., Clark, E., Fetzer,
E., Gao, X., Gu, G., Hilburn, K., Huffman, G., Lettenmaier, D., Liu, W.,
Robertson, F., Schlosser, C., Sheffield, J., and Wood, E.: The observed state
of the water cycle in the early twenty-first century, J. Climate, 28,
8289–8318, 2015. a, b, c, d, e
Rodell, M., Famiglietti, J. S., Wiese, D. N., Reager, J. T., Beaudoing, H. K., Landerer, F. W., and Lo, M.-H.: Emerging trends in global freshwater availability, Nature, 557, 651–659, 2018. a
Sheffield, J., Ferguson, C., Troy, T., Wood, E., and McCabe, M.: Closing the
terrestrial water budget from satellite remote sensing, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L07403, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL037338, 2009. a, b, c, d
Swenson, S. and Wahr, J.: Post-processing removal of correlated errors in GRACE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, 8402, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL025285, 2006. a
Tapley, B. D., Watkins, M. M., Flechtner, F., Reigber, C., Bettadpur, S.,
Rodell, M., Sasgen, I., Famiglietti, J. S., Landerer, F. W., Chambers, D. P.,
Reager, J. T., Gardner, A. S., Save, H., Ivins, E. R., Swenson, S. C.,
Boening, C., Dahle, C., Wiese, D. N., Dobslaw, H., Tamisiea, M. E., and
Velicogna, I.: Contributions of GRACE to understanding climate change, Nat.
Clim. Change, 9, 358–369, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0456-2, 2019. a
Thomas, C., Dong, B., and Haines, K.: Inverse modeling of global and regional
energy and water cycle fluxes using earth observation data, J. Climate, 33, 1707–1723, 2020. a
Twine, T. E., Kustas, W. P., Norman, J. M., Cook, D. R., Houser, P. R., Meyers, T. P., Prueger, J. H., P. J, S., and Wesely, M. L.: Correcting
eddy-covariance flux underestimates over a grassland, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 103, 279–300, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(00)00123-4, 2000. a
Warszawski, L., Frieler, K., Huber, V., Piontek, F., Serdeczny, O., and Schewe, J.: The Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI–MIP): Project framework, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111, 3228–3232,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312330110, 2014. a
Zhang, Y., Pan, M., Sheffield, J., Siemann, A. L., Fisher, C. K., Liang, M., Beck, H. E., Wanders, N., MacCracken, R. F., Houser, P. R., Zhou, T., Lettenmaier, D. P., Pinker, R. T., Bytheway, J., Kummerow, C. D., and Wood, E. F.: A Climate Data Record (CDR) for the global terrestrial water budget: 1984–2010, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 241–263, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-241-2018, 2018. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i
Short summary
Gravitational measurements of water storage from GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) can improve understanding of the water budget. We produce flux estimates over large river catchments based on observations that close the monthly water budget and ensure consistency with GRACE on short and long timescales. We use energy data to provide additional constraints and balance the long-term energy budget. These flux estimates are important for evaluating climate models.
Gravitational measurements of water storage from GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment)...
