Jakob Boyd Pernov, Jules Gros‐Daillon, Julia Schmale
{"title":"北极大陆部分地表ERA5变量与现场观测结果的比较","authors":"Jakob Boyd Pernov, Jules Gros‐Daillon, Julia Schmale","doi":"10.1002/qj.4700","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this study, data from 17 ground‐based, continental Arctic observatories are used to evaluate the performance of the European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis version 5 (ERA5) reanalysis model. Three aspects are evaluated: (i) the overall reproducibility of variables at all stations for all seasons at one‐hour time resolution; (ii) the seasonal performance; and (iii) performance between different temporal resolutions (one hour to one month). Performance is evaluated based on the slope, <jats:italic>R</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> value, and root‐mean‐squared error (RMSE). We focus on surface meteorological variables including 2‐m air temperature (temperature), relative humidity (RH), surface pressure, wind speed, zonal and meridional wind speed components, and short‐wave downward (SWD) radiation flux. The overall comparison revealed the best results for surface pressure (0.98 ± 0.02, <jats:italic>R</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup><jats:sub>mean</jats:sub> ± standard deviation [<jats:italic>σ</jats:italic><jats:sub><jats:italic>R</jats:italic>2</jats:sub>]), followed by temperature (0.94 ± 0.02), and SWD radiation flux (0.87 ± 0.03) while wind speed (0.49 ± 0.12), RH (0.42 ± 0.20), zonal (0.163 ± 0.15) and meridional wind speed (0.129 ± 0.17) displayed poor results. We also found that certain variables (surface pressure, wind speed, meridional, and zonal wind speed) showed no seasonal dependency while others (temperature, RH, and SWD radiation flux) performed better during certain seasons. Improved results were observed when decreasing the temporal resolution from one hour to one month for temperature, meridional and zonal wind speed, and SWD radiation flux. However, certain variables (RH and surface pressure) showed comparatively worse results for monthly resolution. Overall, ERA5 performs well in the Arctic, but caution needs to be taken with wind speed and RH, which has implications for the use of ERA5 in global climate models. Our results are useful to the scientific community as it assesses the confidence to be placed in each of the surface variables produced by ERA5.","PeriodicalId":49646,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of selected surface level ERA5 variables against in‐situ observations in the continental Arctic\",\"authors\":\"Jakob Boyd Pernov, Jules Gros‐Daillon, Julia Schmale\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/qj.4700\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this study, data from 17 ground‐based, continental Arctic observatories are used to evaluate the performance of the European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis version 5 (ERA5) reanalysis model. Three aspects are evaluated: (i) the overall reproducibility of variables at all stations for all seasons at one‐hour time resolution; (ii) the seasonal performance; and (iii) performance between different temporal resolutions (one hour to one month). Performance is evaluated based on the slope, <jats:italic>R</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> value, and root‐mean‐squared error (RMSE). We focus on surface meteorological variables including 2‐m air temperature (temperature), relative humidity (RH), surface pressure, wind speed, zonal and meridional wind speed components, and short‐wave downward (SWD) radiation flux. The overall comparison revealed the best results for surface pressure (0.98 ± 0.02, <jats:italic>R</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup><jats:sub>mean</jats:sub> ± standard deviation [<jats:italic>σ</jats:italic><jats:sub><jats:italic>R</jats:italic>2</jats:sub>]), followed by temperature (0.94 ± 0.02), and SWD radiation flux (0.87 ± 0.03) while wind speed (0.49 ± 0.12), RH (0.42 ± 0.20), zonal (0.163 ± 0.15) and meridional wind speed (0.129 ± 0.17) displayed poor results. We also found that certain variables (surface pressure, wind speed, meridional, and zonal wind speed) showed no seasonal dependency while others (temperature, RH, and SWD radiation flux) performed better during certain seasons. Improved results were observed when decreasing the temporal resolution from one hour to one month for temperature, meridional and zonal wind speed, and SWD radiation flux. However, certain variables (RH and surface pressure) showed comparatively worse results for monthly resolution. Overall, ERA5 performs well in the Arctic, but caution needs to be taken with wind speed and RH, which has implications for the use of ERA5 in global climate models. Our results are useful to the scientific community as it assesses the confidence to be placed in each of the surface variables produced by ERA5.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4700\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.4700","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of selected surface level ERA5 variables against in‐situ observations in the continental Arctic
In this study, data from 17 ground‐based, continental Arctic observatories are used to evaluate the performance of the European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis version 5 (ERA5) reanalysis model. Three aspects are evaluated: (i) the overall reproducibility of variables at all stations for all seasons at one‐hour time resolution; (ii) the seasonal performance; and (iii) performance between different temporal resolutions (one hour to one month). Performance is evaluated based on the slope, R2 value, and root‐mean‐squared error (RMSE). We focus on surface meteorological variables including 2‐m air temperature (temperature), relative humidity (RH), surface pressure, wind speed, zonal and meridional wind speed components, and short‐wave downward (SWD) radiation flux. The overall comparison revealed the best results for surface pressure (0.98 ± 0.02, R2mean ± standard deviation [σR2]), followed by temperature (0.94 ± 0.02), and SWD radiation flux (0.87 ± 0.03) while wind speed (0.49 ± 0.12), RH (0.42 ± 0.20), zonal (0.163 ± 0.15) and meridional wind speed (0.129 ± 0.17) displayed poor results. We also found that certain variables (surface pressure, wind speed, meridional, and zonal wind speed) showed no seasonal dependency while others (temperature, RH, and SWD radiation flux) performed better during certain seasons. Improved results were observed when decreasing the temporal resolution from one hour to one month for temperature, meridional and zonal wind speed, and SWD radiation flux. However, certain variables (RH and surface pressure) showed comparatively worse results for monthly resolution. Overall, ERA5 performs well in the Arctic, but caution needs to be taken with wind speed and RH, which has implications for the use of ERA5 in global climate models. Our results are useful to the scientific community as it assesses the confidence to be placed in each of the surface variables produced by ERA5.
期刊介绍:
The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society is a journal published by the Royal Meteorological Society. It aims to communicate and document new research in the atmospheric sciences and related fields. The journal is considered one of the leading publications in meteorology worldwide. It accepts articles, comprehensive review articles, and comments on published papers. It is published eight times a year, with additional special issues.
The Quarterly Journal has a wide readership of scientists in the atmospheric and related fields. It is indexed and abstracted in various databases, including Advanced Polymers Abstracts, Agricultural Engineering Abstracts, CAB Abstracts, CABDirect, COMPENDEX, CSA Civil Engineering Abstracts, Earthquake Engineering Abstracts, Engineered Materials Abstracts, Science Citation Index, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and more.