Advertisement

Climate Dynamics

, Volume 52, Issue 5–6, pp 3061–3078 | Cite as

Uncertainties in reanalysis surface wind stress and their relationship with observing systems

  • Caihong WenEmail author
  • Arun Kumar
  • Yan Xue
Article
  • 84 Downloads

Abstract

Atmospheric reanalysis surface wind stress (SWS) estimates have been widely used as surface forcings to drive ocean model simulations and ocean reanalyses, and for understanding climate variability. In this study, we quantify uncertainty in SWS products from six reanalyses, with five from the third generation reanalysis (CFSR, MERRA-1, MERRA-2, JRA-55, ERA-Interim) and one from the first generation reanalysis (R2). Our goals are to (1) characterize uncertainties in monthly mean reanalysis SWS estimates, (2) investigate relationship between the spatial and temporal variations of uncertainties and changes in numbers of observed surface wind data and (3) examine consistency of SWS estimates across different generation of reanalysis products. The six reanalysis SWS estimates broadly agree on the global pattern but differ considerably in magnitude. Compared with TAO SWS estimates, R2 and MERRA-1 significantly underestimate SWS speed over the central Pacific Ocean, while MERRA-2 overestimates easterly wind stress over the north western Pacific. On interannual time scale, high consistency among the reanalyses is located in mid-to-high latitudes, while large uncertainty is found in tropical oceans. All six reanalyses exhibit a similar pattern of wind response to ENSO, but differ significantly in the strength. Compared with TAO estimates, MERRA-2, JRA-55 and ERA-Interim capture the evolution and amplitude of wind anomaly associated with ENSO reasonably well, while CFSR is the outlier which underestimates the peak wind anomaly by more than 35%. Our analysis highlights the importance of observed surface wind data in constraining the reanalysis SWS. It is found that the time variations of the spread among the six reanalyses follows closely to changes in the input of ocean surface winds from satellite scatteometers in all the three tropical oceans. In the tropical Pacific, the accuracy of reanalysis SWS is also linked to the return number of TAO/TRITON winds. The correlation between R2 and the third generation reanalysis products display a clear TAO signature, while the third generation reanalysis products are in a closer agreement with each other.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Wesley Ebisuzaki for clarifying wind observations input in the R2 and CFSR reanalyses. TAO/TRITON wind stresses were downloaded from https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/oceansites/flux/main.html. MERRA-1 and MERRA-2 data were from the NASA Goddard Earth Sciences (GES) Data and Information Services Center (DISC) at http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov. JRA-55 data was downloaded from ftp://ds.data.jma.go.jp. ERA-Interim data was downloaded from http://apps.ecmwf.int/datasets/data/interim-full-moda/levtype=sfc/.

References

  1. An S-I, Wang B (2000) Interdecadal change of the structure of the ENSO mode and its impact on the ENSO frequency*. J Clim 13:2044–2055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ando K, Matsumoto T, Nagahama T, Ueki I, Takatsuki Y, Kuroda Y (2005) Drift characteristics of a moored conductivity–temperature–depth sensor and correction of salinity data. J Atmos Ocean Tecknol 22:282–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balmaseda M et al (2015) The ocean reanalyses intercomparison project (ORA-IP). J Oper Oceanogr 8:s80–s97Google Scholar
  4. Barnston AG et al (1999) NCEP forecasts of the El Niño of 1997—98 and its US impacts. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 80:1829–1852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behringer D, Xue Y (2004) Evaluation of the global ocean data assimilation system at NCEP: the Pacific Ocean, paper presented at eighth symposium on integrated observing and assimilation systems for atmosphere, ocean, and land surface, Am. Meteorol. Soc., SeattleGoogle Scholar
  6. Brunke MA, Wang Z, Zeng X, Bosilovich M, Shie C-L (2011) An assessment of the uncertainties in ocean surface turbulent fluxes in 11 reanalysis, satellite-derived, and combined global datasets. J Clim 24:5469–5493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang P, Ji L, Li H (1997) A decadal climate variation in the tropical Atlantic Ocean from thermodynamic air–sea interactions. Nature 385:516–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chelton DB, Schlax MG, Freilich MH, Milliff RF (2004) Satellite measurements reveal persistent small-scale features in ocean winds. Science 303:978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen D, Cane MA, Zebiak SE (1999) The impact of NSCAT winds on predicting the 1997/1998 El Niño: a case study with the Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory model. J Geophys Rec 104:11321–11327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chiodi AM, Harrison D (2017) Simulating ENSO SSTAs from TAO/TRITON winds: the impacts of 20 years of Buoy observations in the Pacific waveguide and comparison with reanalysis products. J Clim 30:1041–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Compo GP et al (2011) The twentieth century reanalysis project Quart. J R Meteorol Soc 137:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cronin MF, Fairall CW, McPhaden MJ (2006) An assessment of buoy-derived and numerical weather prediction surface heat fluxes in the tropical. Pac J Geophys Res 111:C6Google Scholar
  13. Dee DP et al (2011) The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Q J R Meteorol Soc 137:553–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dukhovskoy DS, Bourassa MA, Petersen GN, Steffen J (2017) Comparison of the ocean surface vector winds from atmospheric reanalysis and scatterometer-based wind products over the Nordic Seas and the northern North Atlantic and their application for ocean modeling. J Geophys Res 122:1943–1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. England MH et al (2014) Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Nat Clim Change 4:222–227.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fairall C, Bradley EF, Hare J, Grachev A, Edson J (2003) Bulk parameterization of air–sea fluxes: updates and verification for the COARE algorithm. J Clim 16:571–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graham R (2011) New perspectives for GPCs, their role in the GFCS and a proposed contribution to a ‘World Climate Watch’. Clim Res 47:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffies SM et al (2009) Coordinated ocean-ice reference experiments (COREs). Ocean Modell 26:1–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harada Y et al (2016) The JRA-55 reanalysis: representation of atmospheric circulation and climate variability. J Meteorol Soc Jpn 94:269–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayes S, McPhaden M, Wallace J (1989) The influence of sea-surface temperature on surface wind in the eastern equatorial Pacific: weekly to monthly variability. J Clim 2:1500–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Josey SA, Yu L, Gulev S, Jin X, Tilinina N, Barnier B, Brodeau L (2014) Unexpected impacts of the Tropical Pacific array on reanalysis surface meteorology and heat fluxes. Geophys Res Lett 41:6213–6220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kalnay E et al (1996) The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 77:437–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kanamitsu M, Ebisuzaki W, Woollen J, Yang SK, Hnilo J, Fiorino M, Potter G (2002) Ncep-doe amip-ii reanalysis (r-2). Bull Am Meteorol Soc 83:1631–1644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kessler WS (2002) Is ENSO a cycle or a series of events? Geophys Res Lett 29:23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kobayashi C et al (2014) Preliminary results of the JRA-55C, an atmospheric reanalysis assimilating conventional observations only. Sola 10:78–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kobayashi S et al (2015) The JRA-55 reanalysis: general specifications and basic characteristics. J Meteorol Soc Jpn 93:5–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kug JS, Kang IS, Zebiak SE (2001) The impacts of the model assimilated wind stress data in the initialization of an intermediate ocean and the ENSO predictability. Geophys Res Lett 28:3713–3716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kumar A, Hu Z-Z (2012) Uncertainty in the ocean–atmosphere feedbacks associated with ENSO in the reanalysis products. Clim Dyn 39:575–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Latif M et al (1998) A review of the predictability and prediction of ENSO. J Geophys Res 103:14375–14393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McGregor S, Gupta AS, England MH (2012) Constraining wind stress products with sea surface height observations and implications for Pacific Ocean sea level trend attribution*. J Clim 25:8164–8176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McPhaden MJ et al (1998) The tropical ocean-global atmosphere observing system: a decade of progress. J Geophys Res 103:14169–14240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Molod A, Takacs L, Suarez M, Bacmeister J (2015) Development of the GEOS-5 atmospheric general circulation model: evolution from MERRA to MERRA2. Geosci Model Dev 8:1339–1356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Renfrew IA, Moore G, Guest PS, Bumke K (2002) A comparison of surface layer and surface turbulent flux observations over the Labrador Sea with ECMWF analyses and NCEP reanalyses. J Phys Oceanogr 32:383–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rienecker MM et al (2011) MERRA: NASA’s modern-era retrospective analysis for research and applications. J Clim 24:3624–3648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Risien CM, Chelton DB (2008) A global climatology of surface wind and wind stress fields from eight years of QuikSCAT scatterometer data. J Phys Oceanogr 38:2379–2413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saha S et al (2010) The NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 91:1015–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stopa JE, Cheung KF (2014) Intercomparison of wind and wave data from the ECMWF Reanalysis Interim and the NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis. Ocean Model 75:65–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Uppala SM et al (2005) The ERA-40 re-analysis. Q J R Meteorol Soc 131:2961–3012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang W, Xie P, Yoo S-H, Xue Y, Kumar A, Wu X (2011) An assessment of the surface climate in the NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis. Clim Dyn 37:1601–1620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wen C, Xue Y, Kumar A, Behringer D, Yu L (2017) How do uncertainties in NCEP R2 and CFSR surface fluxes impact tropical ocean. simulations? Clim Dyn 49:3327–3344.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3516-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wittenberg AT (2004) Extended wind stress analyses for ENSO. J Clim 17:2526–2540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Xue Y, Huang B, Hu ZZ, Kumar A, Wen C, Behringer D, Nadiga S (2011) An assessment of oceanic variability in the NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis. Clim Dyn 37:2511–2539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Xue Y et al. (2017) A real-time ocean reanalyses intercomparison project in the context of tropical pacific observing system and ENSO monitoring. Clim Dyn.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3535-y Google Scholar
  44. Yu L, Jin X, Josey SA, Lee T, Kumar A, Wen C, Xue Y (2017) The global ocean water cycle in atmospheric reanalysis, satellite, and ocean salinity. J Clim 30:3829–3852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhang C, Gottschalck J (2002) SST anomalies of ENSO and the Madden–Julian oscillation in the equatorial Pacific. J Clim 15:2429–2445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang L, Kumar A, Wang W (2012) Influence of changes in observations on precipitation: a case study for the climate forecast system reanalysis (CFSR). J Geophys Res 117:D8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Climate Prediction Center, NCEP/NWS/NOAACollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.InnovimGreenbeltUSA

Personalised recommendations