4.6 Article

Intercomparison of wind and wave data from the ECMWF Reanalysis Interim and the NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis

期刊

OCEAN MODELLING
卷 75, 期 -, 页码 65-83

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ocemod.2013.12.006

关键词

Climate Forecast System Reanalysis; ERA-Interim; Wind wave modeling; Reanalysis intercomparison; Wave hindcasting

资金

  1. Department of Energy via National Marine Renewable Energy Center [DE-FG36-08G018180]
  2. NOAA through Pacific Integrated Ocean Observing System program [NA11-NOS0120039]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recent release of the ECMWF Reanalysis Interim (ERA-I) and NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) allows for studies of global climate and its cycles with unprecedented detail. While the developers have performed verification and validation, there is little information on their relative performance in particular related to their use in ocean modeling. This study focuses on the intercomparison of wind speeds and wave heights from ERA-I and CFSR utilizing the same set of altimetry and buoy observations and error metrics to assess their consistency in time and space. Both products have good spatial homogeneity with consistent levels of errors in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. ERA-I proves to be homogenous through time, while CFSR exhibits an abrupt decrease in the level of errors in the Southern Ocean beginning 1994. ERA-I generally underestimates the wind speed and wave height with lower standard deviations in comparison to observations, but maintains slightly better error metrics. Despite having a small positive bias, CFSR provides a better description of the variability of the observations and improved performance in the upper percentiles associated with extreme events. Overall ERA-I has better homogeneity through time deeming it more reliable for modeling of long-term processes; however caution must be applied with analysis of the upper percentiles. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据