The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluation of Global Precipitation in Reanalyses
Open accessAbstract
Retrospective-analysis (or reanalysis) systems merge observations and models to provide global four-dimensional earth system data encompassing many physical and dynamical processes. Precipitation is one critical diagnostic that is not only sensitive to the observing system and model physics, but also reflects the general circulation. Climate records of observed precipitation through a merged satellite and gauge dataset provide a reference for comparison, though not without their own uncertainty. In this study, five reanalyses precipitation fields are compared with two observed data products to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the reanalyses. Taylor diagrams show the skill of the reanalyses relative to the reference dataset. While there is a general sense that the reanalyses precipitation data are improving in recent systems, it is not always the case. In some ocean regions, NCEP–NCAR reanalysis spatial patterns are closer to observed precipitation than NCEP–Department of Energy. The 40-yr ECMWF reanalysis (ERA-40) produces reasonable comparisons over Northern Hemisphere continents, but less so in the tropical oceans. On the other hand, the most recent reanalysis, the Japanese 25-yr reanalysis (JRA-25), shows good comparisons in both the Northern Hemisphere continents and the tropical oceans but contains distinct variation according to the available observing systems. The statistics and methods used are also tested on short experiments from a data assimilation system proposed to perform a satellite-era reanalysis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project
Compo, G. P., Whitaker, J. S., Sardeshmukh, P. D., Matsui, N., Allan, R. J., Yin, X., Gleason, B. E., Vose, R. S., Rutledge, G., Bessemoulin, P., et al. (2011) · Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · doi:10.1002/qj.776 · Cited by 3,518
Schneider, U., Becker, A., Finger, P., Meyer-Christoffer, A., Ziese, M., & Rudolf, B. (2014) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-013-0860-x · Cited by 1,385
A 50‐year high‐resolution atmospheric reanalysis over France with the Safran system
Vidal, J., Martin, E., Franchistéguy, L., Baillon, M., & Soubeyroux, J. (2010) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.2003 · Cited by 788
Evaluation of the Reanalysis Products from GSFC, NCEP, and ECMWF Using Flux Tower Observations
Decker, M., Brunke, M. A., Wang, Z., Sakaguchi, K., Zeng, X., & Bosilovich, M. G. (2012) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-11-00004.1 · Cited by 361
Self-citationLorenz, C., & Kunstmann, H. (2012) · Journal of Hydrometeorology · doi:10.1175/jhm-d-11-088.1 · Cited by 349
Nogueira, M. (2020) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124632 · Cited by 279
Metadata
- Authors
- Bosilovich, M. G., Chen, J., Robertson, F. R., & Adler, R. F.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2008-09-01
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 2279-2299
- ISSN
- 1558-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-8432
- OpenAlex
- W1986214504
- Cited by
- 408
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.