the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Benchmarking convection-permitting climate simulations for hydrological applications: A comparative study of WRF-SAAG and observation-based products
Abstract. Over the last years, significant progress has been made in the development of convection-permitting climate models (CPCMs), especially for improving precipitation modeling in regions with complex terrain. Recently, the South American Affinity Group (SAAG) developed a novel high-resolution dataset — hereafter referred to as the WRF-SAAG dataset — by dynamically downscaling the ERA5 reanalysis using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model over South America for the period 2000–2021. In this paper, we evaluate the quality of WRF-SAAG daily precipitation and temperature simulations using observations from meteorological stations over continental Chile for the period 2001–2018, and present comparisons against two gridded meteorological products – CR2MET and RF-MEP – which are based on in-situ meteorological station measurements and have been widely used for hydrometeorological applications in this region. We found that, although the precipitation products correctly replicated the percentage correct (PC) of observed events and non-events (PC ≥ 0.64), detection accuracy varied within each Chilean macrozone –defined by latitudinal bands – with worse performance in the Far North (between 17.5 – 26° S) and Patagonia (between 43.7 – 56° S) — median Critical Success Index (CSI) < 0.49 for events > 5 mm/d— compared to the central region (CSI ≥ 0.44 for events > 5 mm/d). The evaluation of daily precipitation and extreme temperatures against station observations using Tang’s Kling-Gupta efficiency (KGET) and its components reveals that all datasets performed better in reproducing precipitation in rainy regions (median KGET ≥ 0.65 in the Southern macrozone), while in arid areas such as the Near North during summer, the median KGET was negative. The CR2MET product consistently provided the best performance metrics for extreme precipitation and temperature, partly because it includes information from the stations used for evaluation. Finally, the application of the TUW hydrological model shows that WRF-SAAG simulations achieved runoff estimations comparable to the best observation-based products, with the best metrics obtained in the Southern macrozone, where the median objective function (OF) —defined as the average of KGE' and KGE' (1/q) — remains above 0.87 (0.67) during the calibration (evaluation) period. More broadly, the results presented here show that – despite some remaining challenges in arid climate regions – kilometer-scale climate models can deliver information of a quality comparable to that of observation-based products for hydrological applications in Chile.
- Preprint
(4903 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3061', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Sep 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-3061/egusphere-2025-3061-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2025-3061-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Pablo Mendoza, 03 Nov 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3061', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Oct 2025
This manuscript evaluates precipitation and temperature from WRF-SAAG, CR2MET, and RF-MEP against in-situ stations across continental Chile. The topic is important and relevant. Below are my major and minor comments.
Major Comments:
- Since WRF-SAAG is not expected to reproduce specific events, I am unclear about the motivation for this evaluation. Is WRF-SAAG typically used as forcing for hydrological models to obtain hydrological simulations? If so, is this recommended practice? If not, the value of evaluating individual events is limited. In that case, comparing climatological characteristics across datasets might be more meaningful.
- As this is an evaluation study, the manuscript would benefit from clearer take-home messages. For example: Which dataset should be preferred under certain conditions or in specific regions? Are there areas where none of the datasets are recommended?
- Figures 3–5: Consider presenting KGE values as boxplots, since the authors mention medians of the KGE frequently. The spatial maps make it difficult to assess the median.
- Line 285: When precipitation events > 1 mm/day are considered, CR2MET performs best overall, but for thresholds > 5, > 10, and > 20 mm/day, RF-MEP performs best. Could this pattern be influenced by the precipitation distribution? For example, are events between 1–5 mm/day dominant when precipitation events > 1 mm/day? If so, it might cause RF-MEP’s superior performance at higher intensities to be diluted when all events > 1 mm/day are included.
- Line 262: Please specify the formula used to estimate PET and list the variables involved.
Minor Comments:
- Abstract: WRF-SAAG data are available until 2021. Why was the evaluation restricted to 2001–2018?
- Line 120: Consider adding polygons to the maps to delineate the four geographical units, which would help international readers.
- The first part of the abstract reads like that WRF-SAAG was evaluated against CR2MET and RF-MEP, but in fact all three datasets were compared against in-situ observations. Please revise for clarity.
- Line 135: What do “daily observations” refer to? Are they discharge (Q) and precipitation (P)? Does this also include temperature?
- Line 210: It seems the reference should be “1b (1c)” instead of “1c (1d).”
- Line 255: The DEM data should be introduced in the Data section.
- Equation 8: Please clarify what Q and 1/Q represent in the KGE′ formulation.
- Line 220: When referring to precipitation events > 1 mm/day, do these include events exceeding 5, 10, and 20 mm/day, or are they limited to events between 1–5 mm/day? Please clarify.
- Line 297: This section appears to discuss only summer results. Why are “all seasons” mentioned here?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3061-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Pablo Mendoza, 03 Nov 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3061', Anonymous Referee #3, 07 Oct 2025
Publisher’s note: the supplement to this comment was edited on 8 October 2025. The adjustments were minor without effect on the scientific meaning.
Please see my comments attached.
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Pablo Mendoza, 03 Nov 2025
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,323 | 104 | 33 | 1,460 | 33 | 40 |
- HTML: 1,323
- PDF: 104
- XML: 33
- Total: 1,460
- BibTeX: 33
- EndNote: 40
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1