Since the implementation of EFAS version 5.4 (XXX 2025) and GloFAS v4.3 (YYY 2025), the same design of products are used for the sub-seasonal range both in EFAS and GloFAS. This means, the previous EFAS sub-seasonal products were replaced by the new ones, while for GloFAS the sub-seasonal products are completely new. 

Sub-seasonal product configuration design

The new sub-seasonal products have calendar weekly periods (i.e. always Monday-Sunday) as lead time. The fixed calendar weeks as forecast lead times will allow the users to compare forecasts from different runs, as the verification period is fixed (as the calendar weeks). The generation of the sub-seasonal products rely on few major components:

Real time forecasts: This part is the hydrological forecasts produced in real time. This will give the actual predicted conditions for the sub-seasonal products that will be compared to climatologies to derive the forecast anomalies. In the following we describe the characteristics of these forecast simulations. Where appropriate, the difference between EFAS and GloFAS is specified. If there is no EFAS/GloFAS mentioned, then the method is identical between the two forecast systems:

• Hydrological model: LISFLOOD (LINK!)
• Meteorological forcing: the combination of the 9km (horizontal resolution) ECMWF ensemble forecasts (LINK!) and the 36km ECMWF sub-seasonal forecasts (LINK!) from the PREVIOUS RUN
  • The low-resolution sub-seasonal forcing is taken from the precious available forecast run simply because of timing, as the sub-seasonal meteo forecasts for the same day are only available with several hours delay after the high-resolution forecasts. 
  • The high- and low-resolution forcing is currently combined by a simple mechanical blending by using first the high resolution meteorological forcing for days 1-15, while the low-resolution meteorological forcing for days 16-45, for each of the 51 ensemble members. 
  • The blending can create inconsistencies locally over very complex orograpihcal areas, due to the resolution change at day15, and also there could be some smaller inconsistencies between the ensemble in the from 16 vs to 15 days, due to the mechanical blending which will mix different weather conditions from the low- and high-res meteo data, but overall as an ensemble of 51 scenarios, this will not be expected to lead to any larger discontinuities. 
• Number of ensemble members: 51 ensemble members (one unperturbed and 50 perturbed) to represent the equally likely forecast scenarios of the future
• River resolution: 3arcmin (~5km) in GloFAS and 1arcmin (~1.5 km) in EFAS
• Run frequency: Forecasts are generated daily for 00 UTC
• Lead time: 45 days (1080 hours). Only 45 days, as although the low-resolution sub-seasonal meteo forecasts run out to 46 days, we can only rely on the 1-day-old run, which means we can only run the simulations to 45 days ahead  
• Forecast steps: 6-hourly in EFAS and 24-hourly in GloFAS
• Forecast hydrological initialisation: From a fillup simulation forced with the shortest-range ENS-Control (unperturbed member of the ECMWF ensemble forecast) meteorological conditions

Reforecasts: The sub-seasonal products rely on range-dependent climatologies, that change with the forecast lead time. The climatologies are produced from a large set of hydrological reforecasts. In the following we describe the characteristics of these reforecast simulations. Where appropriate, the difference between EFAS and GloFAS is specified. If there is no EFAS/GloFAS mentioned, then the method is identical between the two systems:

• Hydrological model: LISFLOOD (LINK!)
• Meteorological forcing: the combination of the 9km (horizontal resolution) ECMWF ensemble forecasts (LINK!) and the 36km ECMWF sub-seasonal forecasts (LINK!) from the SAME RUN
  
  • The low-resolution sub-seasonal and high-resolution medium-range forcings are taken from the same forecast run date. The timing of the availability of the low-resolution forecasts is not an issue here, as these reforecasts are only produced retrospectively without any time constraints.
  • The high- and low-resolution forcing is currently combined by a simple mechanical blending by using first the high resolution meteorological forcing for days 1-15, while the low-resolution meteorological forcing for days 16-46, for each of the 11 ensemble members. 
  • The blending can create inconsistencies locally over very complex orographical areas, due to the resolution change at day15, and also there could be some smaller inconsistencies between the ensemble in the from 16 vs to 15 days, due to the mechanical blending which will mix different weather conditions from the low- and high-res meteo data, but overall as an ensemble of 11 scenarios, this will not be expected to lead to any larger discontinuities.
• Number of ensemble members: 11 ensemble members (one unperturbed and 10 perturbed) to represent the equally likely forecast scenarios of the future
• River resolution: 3arcmin (~5km) in GloFAS and 1arcmin (~1.5 km) in EFAS
• Run frequency: Forecasts are generated always for the past 20 years. Before 12 Nov 2024, they were generated twice-weekly on Mondays and Thursdays (for 00 UTC), while from 12 Nov 2024 they are generated on given days of the months, as 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25 and 29 (excluding 29 Feb).
• Lead time: 46 days (1104 hours)
• Forecast steps: 6-hourly in EFAS and 24-hourly in GloFAS
• Forecast hydrological initialisation: From the monitoring hydrological simulation, forced with gridded meteorological observations in EFAS and ERA5 reanalysis meteorological data in GloFAS

Climatologies: The sub-seasonal products rely on range-dependent climatologies, that change with the forecast lead time, and which are produced from the hydrological reforecasts. The climatologies will give the reference point for the different anomaly categories applied in the sub-seasonal range. These reference points are some of the specific quantiles from the climate distribution, such as the 10th and 90th percentile values. In the following we describe the main characteristics of the climatologies. Where appropriate, the difference between EFAS and GloFAS is specified. If there is no EFAS/GloFAS mentioned, then the method is identical between the two systems:

• We currently produce climate files for each reforecast run date, so in total 8*12-1 = 95 dates in a calendar year with 1/5/9/13/17/21/25/29 of each month, excluding 29 Feb.
• For each of these climate dates, there will be climate files for each possible daily lead time of the sub-seasonal range. Here not only calendar weeks are considered, but all possible 7-day lead times, starting from days1-7, then days2-8, .., out to days 40-46 (40 possible lead times). This way, the weekly mean climatology for all possible lead times will be available, and so for each real time forecast the right climatology can be used, with the correct lead time in days, depending on which day of the week the real time forecast run (i.e. which corresponding climate lead time to choose in order to get to the calendar weeks).
• Climate sample: For the sub-seasonal, we have 20 years of reforecast with run dates roughly twice a week. For the climate sample always 3 run dates are used, the actual climate data we generate the climate for and one reforecast date before and after. For example, when generating the climate sample for 15 December 2024, all reforecasts produced for 11, 15 and 19 December will be used in the climate sample from years 2004-2023. All ensemble members are considered independently, therefore the climate sample is with 3*20*11 = 660 reforecast values for each river pixel.
• Climate distribution: The climate percentiles are produced, from 1 to 99, where the 1st percentile will the value that is exceeded 99% of the time, while the 99th percentile will be the value the reforecasts will exceed only 1% of the time. These climate percentiles will be specific to 40 possible lead times of days1-7 to days 40-46.

Mean river discharge. Over the forecast period, so either the weeks or the months. This is the must one, and this is kind of we have currently anyway

• Use the percentile climatology (99 values) to quantify the severity of the signal and based on that the category of the signal. Both for the monitoring (WB) and for the forecast part, again both for sub-seasonal and seasonal. 
  • This means, we rank the verifying WB, or the forecast values (every member) in the 99-value percentile model climatology. So, for example +3 would mean, the forecast is between the 52nd and 53rd percentiles, while -21 would mean the forecast is between the 29th and 30th percentiles. The lowest value is -50 (forecast is below the 1st percentile), while the largest is +50 (forecast is larger than the 99th percentile).
• Also use the European state of the climate example with 7 severity categories, based on the above percentiles.
  • So, we should use 7 categories of the severity, with the 40/60th, 25/75th and 10/90th percentiles defining the 7 categories. One near normal, and 3/3 for above and below normal conditions.
  • Alternatively, we could maybe go for the simpler 5-category quintiles, which is only 5 categories, so the colour selection would be simpler. GloFAS is currently using this upper/lower 20% quintile approach. But for example, EFAS does use the 10/90% percentiles. I agree with EFAS, and I really think the 10/90% percentile upper/low deciles are important to use as real extreme categories. Just in case the conditions get that extreme, which they do, even if mostly and only in the first part of the forecast horizon.
• For the WB, the category will be defined by the rank of the WB value in the 99 value percentile. The dominant category is again simply the category where the WB severity falls.
• For the real time forecasts, instead we will have a 51-value ensemble of ranks (-50 to 50). So, for defining the dominant category, we have options:
  • Most populated: We either choose the most populated of the 7 categories. But this will be more problematic for very uncertain cases, when little shifts in the distribution could potentially mean large shift in the categories. For example assuming a distribution of 8/7/8/7/7/7/7 and 6/7/7/7/8/9/7. These two are very much possible for the longer ranges. It is a question anyway, which one to choose in the first example, Cat1 or Cat5, they are equally likely. But then, in the 2nd case we have Cat6 as winner. But the two cases are otherwise very similar.
  • ENS-mean: Alternatively, we can rather use the ensemble mean, and rank the ensemble mean value and define the severity category that way. for the above example, this would not mean a big difference, as the ensemble mean is expected to be quite similar for both forecast distributions, so the two categories will also be either the same, or maybe only one apart. I think this is what we need to do!