The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Long‐range experimental hydrologic forecasting for the eastern United States
Open accessAbstract
We explore a strategy for long‐range hydrologic forecasting that uses ensemble climate model forecasts as input to a macroscale hydrologic model to produce runoff and streamflow forecasts at spatial and temporal scales appropriate for water management. Monthly ensemble climate model forecasts produced by the National Centers for Environmental Prediction/Climate Prediction Center global spectral model (GSM) are bias corrected, downscaled to 1/8° horizontal resolution, and disaggregated to a daily time step for input to the Variable Infiltration Capacity hydrologic model. Bias correction is effected by evaluating the GSM ensemble forecast variables as percentiles relative to the GSM model climatology and then extracting the percentiles' associated variable values instead from the observed climatology. The monthly meteorological forecasts are then interpolated to the finer hydrologic model scale, at which a daily signal that preserves the forecast anomaly is imposed through resampling of the historic record. With the resulting monthly runoff and streamflow forecasts for the East Coast and Ohio River basin, we evaluate the bias correction and resampling approaches during the southeastern United States drought from May to August 2000 and also for the El Niño conditions of December 1997 to February 1998. For the summer 2000 study period, persistence in anomalous initial hydrologic states predominates in determining the hydrologic forecasts. In contrast, the El Niño‐condition hydrologic forecasts derive direction both from the climate model forecast signal and the antecedent land surface state. From a qualitative standpoint the hydrologic forecasting strategy appears successful in translating climate forecast signals to hydrologic variables of interest for water management.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Hydrologic Implications of Dynamical and Statistical Approaches to Downscaling Climate Model Outputs
Wood, A. W., Leung, L. R., Sridhar, V., & Lettenmaier, D. P. (2004) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1023/b:clim.0000013685.99609.9e · Cited by 1,886
Self-citation(2019) · doi:10.5194/hess-23-5089-2019 · Cited by 1,223
Thrasher, B., Maurer, E. P., McKellar, C., & Duffy, P. B. (2012) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-16-3309-2012 · Cited by 676
Self-citationBias correction of daily GCM rainfall for crop simulation studies
Ines, A. V. M., & Hansen, J. W. (2006) · Agricultural and Forest Meteorology · doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.03.009 · Cited by 649
Seasonal Drought Prediction: Advances, Challenges, and Future Prospects
Hao, Z., Singh, V. P., & Xia, Y. (2018) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1002/2016rg000549 · Cited by 607
Metadata
- Authors
- Wood, A. W., Maurer, E. P., Kumar, A., & Lettenmaier, D. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2002-10-23
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- D20
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2163145639
- Cited by
- 1,037
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Long‐range experimental hydrologic forecasting for the eastern United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2001jd000659
- The paper
- Wood, A. W., Maurer, E. P., Kumar, A., & Lettenmaier, D. P. (2002). Long‐range experimental hydrologic forecasting for the eastern United States. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001jd000659
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.