Framed within the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) of the European Commission, the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) is producing an enhanced global dataset for the land component of the fifth generation of European ReAnalysis (ERA5), hereafter referred to as ERA5-Land. Once completed, the period covered will span from 1950 to the present, with continuous updates to support land monitoring applications. ERA5-Land describes the evolution of the water and energy cycles over land in a consistent manner over the production period, which, among others, could be used to analyse trends and anomalies. This is achieved through global high-resolution numerical integrations of the ECMWF land surface model driven by the downscaled meteorological forcing from the ERA5 climate reanalysis, including an elevation correction for the thermodynamic near-surface state. ERA5-Land shares with ERA5 most of the parameterizations that guarantees the use of the state-of-the-art land surface modelling applied to numerical weather prediction (NWP) models. A main advantage of ERA5-Land compared to ERA5 and the older ERA-Interim is the horizontal resolution, which is enhanced globally to 9 km compared to 31 km (ERA5) or 80 km (ERA-Interim), whereas the temporal resolution is hourly as in ERA5. Evaluation against independent in situ observations and global model or satellite-based reference datasets shows the added value of ERA5-Land in the description of the hydrological cycle, in particular with enhanced soil moisture and lake description, and an overall better agreement of river discharge estimations with available observations. However, ERA5-Land snow depth fields present a mixed performance when compared to those of ERA5, depending on geographical location and altitude. The description of the energy cycle shows comparable results with ERA5. Nevertheless, ERA5-Land reduces the global averaged root mean square error of the skin temperature, taking as reference MODIS data, mainly due to the contribution of coastal points where spatial resolution is important. Since January 2020, the ERA5-Land period available has extended from January 1981 to the near present, with a 2- to 3-month delay with respect to real time. The segment prior to 1981 is in production, aiming for a release of the whole dataset in summer/autumn 2021. The high spatial and temporal resolution of ERA5-Land, its extended period, and the consistency of the fields produced makes it a valuable dataset to support hydrological studies, to initialize NWP and climate models, and to support diverse applications dealing with water resource, land, and environmental management. The full ERA5-Land hourly (Muñoz-Sabater, 2019a) and monthly (Muñoz-Sabater, 2019b) averaged datasets presented in this paper are available through the C3S Climate Data Store at https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.e2161bac and https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.68d2bb30, respectively.

The Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model (GLEAM) is a set of algorithms dedicated to the estimation of terrestrial evaporation and root-zone soil moisture from satellite data. Ever since its development in 2011, the model has been regularly revised, aiming at the optimal incorporation of new satellite-observed geophysical variables, and improving the representation of physical processes. In this study, the next version of this model (v3) is presented. Key changes relative to the previous version include (1) a revised formulation of the evaporative stress, (2) an optimized drainage algorithm, and (3) a new soil moisture data assimilation system. GLEAM v3 is used to produce three new data sets of terrestrial evaporation and root-zone soil moisture, including a 36-year data set spanning 1980–2015, referred to as v3a (based on satellite-observed soil moisture, vegetation optical depth and snow-water equivalent, reanalysis air temperature and radiation, and a multi-source precipitation product), and two satellite-based data sets. The latter share most of their forcing, except for the vegetation optical depth and soil moisture, which are based on observations from different passive and active C- and L-band microwave sensors (European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative, ESA CCI) for the v3b data set (spanning 2003–2015) and observations from the Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) satellite in the v3c data set (spanning 2011–2015). Here, these three data sets are described in detail, compared against analogous data sets generated using the previous version of GLEAM (v2), and validated against measurements from 91 eddy-covariance towers and 2325 soil moisture sensors across a broad range of ecosystems. Results indicate that the quality of the v3 soil moisture is consistently better than the one from v2: average correlations against in situ surface soil moisture measurements increase from 0.61 to 0.64 in the case of the v3a data set and the representation of soil moisture in the second layer improves as well, with correlations increasing from 0.47 to 0.53. Similar improvements are observed for the v3b and c data sets. Despite regional differences, the quality of the evaporation fluxes remains overall similar to the one obtained using the previous version of GLEAM, with average correlations against eddy-covariance measurements ranging between 0.78 and 0.81 for the different data sets. These global data sets of terrestrial evaporation and root-zone soil moisture are now openly available at www.GLEAM.eu and may be used for large-scale hydrological applications, climate studies, or research on land–atmosphere feedbacks.

Current global precipitation (P) datasets do not take full advantage of the complementary nature of satellite and reanalysis data. Here, we present Multi-Source Weighted-Ensemble Precipitation (MSWEP) version 1.1, a global P dataset for the period 1979–2015 with a 3-hourly temporal and 0.25° spatial resolution, specifically designed for hydrological modeling. The design philosophy of MSWEP was to optimally merge the highest quality P data sources available as a function of timescale and location. The long-term mean of MSWEP was based on the CHPclim dataset but replaced with more accurate regional datasets where available. A correction for gauge under-catch and orographic effects was introduced by inferring catchment-average P from streamflow (Q) observations at 13 762 stations across the globe. The temporal variability of MSWEP was determined by weighted averaging of P anomalies from seven datasets; two based solely on interpolation of gauge observations (CPC Unified and GPCC), three on satellite remote sensing (CMORPH, GSMaP-MVK, and TMPA 3B42RT), and two on atmospheric model reanalysis (ERA-Interim and JRA-55). For each grid cell, the weight assigned to the gauge-based estimates was calculated from the gauge network density, while the weights assigned to the satellite- and reanalysis-based estimates were calculated from their comparative performance at the surrounding gauges. The quality of MSWEP was compared against four state-of-the-art gauge-adjusted P datasets (WFDEI-CRU, GPCP-1DD, TMPA 3B42, and CPC Unified) using independent P data from 125 FLUXNET tower stations around the globe. MSWEP obtained the highest daily correlation coefficient (R) among the five P datasets for 60.0 % of the stations and a median R of 0.67 vs. 0.44–0.59 for the other datasets. We further evaluated the performance of MSWEP using hydrological modeling for 9011 catchments (< 50 000 km²) across the globe. Specifically, we calibrated the simple conceptual hydrological model HBV (Hydrologiska Byråns Vattenbalansavdelning) against daily Q observations with P from each of the different datasets. For the 1058 sparsely gauged catchments, representative of 83.9 % of the global land surface (excluding Antarctica), MSWEP obtained a median calibration NSE of 0.52 vs. 0.29–0.39 for the other P datasets. MSWEP is available via http://www.gloh2o.org.

The WAter Cycle Multi-mission Observation Strategy – EvapoTranspiration (WACMOS-ET) project aims to advance the development of land evaporation estimates on global and regional scales. Its main objective is the derivation, validation, and intercomparison of a group of existing evaporation retrieval algorithms driven by a common forcing data set. Three commonly used process-based evaporation methodologies are evaluated: the Penman–Monteith algorithm behind the official Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) evaporation product (PM-MOD), the Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model (GLEAM), and the Priestley–Taylor Jet Propulsion Laboratory model (PT-JPL). The resulting global spatiotemporal variability of evaporation, the closure of regional water budgets, and the discrete estimation of land evaporation components or sources (i.e. transpiration, interception loss, and direct soil evaporation) are investigated using river discharge data, independent global evaporation data sets and results from previous studies. In a companion article (Part 1), Michel et al. (2016) inspect the performance of these three models at local scales using measurements from eddy-covariance towers and include in the assessment the Surface Energy Balance System (SEBS) model. In agreement with Part 1, our results indicate that the Priestley and Taylor products (PT-JPL and GLEAM) perform best overall for most ecosystems and climate regimes. While all three evaporation products adequately represent the expected average geographical patterns and seasonality, there is a tendency in PM-MOD to underestimate the flux in the tropics and subtropics. Overall, results from GLEAM and PT-JPL appear more realistic when compared to surface water balances from 837 globally distributed catchments and to separate evaporation estimates from ERA-Interim and the model tree ensemble (MTE). Nonetheless, all products show large dissimilarities during conditions of water stress and drought and deficiencies in the way evaporation is partitioned into its different components. This observed inter-product variability, even when common forcing is used, suggests that caution is necessary in applying a single data set for large-scale studies in isolation. A general finding that different models perform better under different conditions highlights the potential for considering biome- or climate-specific composites of models. Nevertheless, the generation of a multi-product ensemble, with weighting based on validation analyses and uncertainty assessments, is proposed as the best way forward in our long-term goal to develop a robust observational benchmark data set of continental evaporation.

The WAter Cycle Multi-mission Observation Strategy – EvapoTranspiration (WACMOS-ET) project has compiled a forcing data set covering the period 2005–2007 that aims to maximize the exploitation of European Earth Observations data sets for evapotranspiration (ET) estimation. The data set was used to run four established ET algorithms: the Priestley–Taylor Jet Propulsion Laboratory model (PT-JPL), the Penman–Monteith algorithm from the MODerate resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) evaporation product (PM-MOD), the Surface Energy Balance System (SEBS) and the Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model (GLEAM). In addition, in situ meteorological data from 24 FLUXNET towers were used to force the models, with results from both forcing sets compared to tower-based flux observations. Model performance was assessed on several timescales using both sub-daily and daily forcings. The PT-JPL model and GLEAM provide the best performance for both satellite- and tower-based forcing as well as for the considered temporal resolutions. Simulations using the PM-MOD were mostly underestimated, while the SEBS performance was characterized by a systematic overestimation. In general, all four algorithms produce the best results in wet and moderately wet climate regimes. In dry regimes, the correlation and the absolute agreement with the reference tower ET observations were consistently lower. While ET derived with in situ forcing data agrees best with the tower measurements (R² = 0.67), the agreement of the satellite-based ET estimates is only marginally lower (R² = 0.58). Results also show similar model performance at daily and sub-daily (3-hourly) resolutions. Overall, our validation experiments against in situ measurements indicate that there is no single best-performing algorithm across all biome and forcing types. An extension of the evaluation to a larger selection of 85 towers (model inputs resampled to a common grid to facilitate global estimates) confirmed the original findings.