4.6 Article

Evaluation of the twentieth century reanalysis dataset in describing East Asian winter monsoon variability

Journal

ADVANCES IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
Volume 30, Issue 6, Pages 1645-1652

Publisher

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1007/s00376-012-2226-1

Keywords

Twentieth Century Reanalysis dataset; East Asian winter monsoon; Siberian High; eastern China

Funding

  1. State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology [2013-KF-05]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2012CB955401, 2010CB428506]
  3. Korea Polar Research Institute [PE13010]
  4. Korea Institute of Marine Science & Technology Promotion (KIMST) [PE13010] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Twentieth Century Reanalysis (20thCR) dataset released in 2010 covers the period 1871-2010 and is one of the longest reanalysis datasets available worldwide. Using ERA-40, ERA-Interim and NCEP-NCAR reanalysis data, as well as HadSLP2 data and meteorological temperature records over eastern China, the performances of 20thCR in reproducing the spatial patterns and temporal variability of the East Asian winter monsoon (EAWM) are examined. Results indicate that 20thCR data: (1) can accurately reproduce the most typical configuration patterns of all sub-factors involved in the EAWM system, albeit with some differences in the main circulation fields over East Asia in comparison to ERA-40 reanalysis data; (2) is reliable and stable in describing the temporal variability of EAWM since the 1930s; and (3) can describe the high-frequency variability of EAWM better than the low-frequency fluctuations, especially in the early period. In conclusion, caution should be taken when using 20thCR data to study interdecadal variabilities or long-term trends of the EAWM, especially prior to the 1930s.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available