Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 355

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of Extratropical Cyclones in Recent Reanalyses ERA-Interim, NASA MERRA, NCEP CFSR, and JRA-25

Open access
Hodges, K. I., Lee, R. W., Bengtsson, L.·2011·Journal of Climate

Abstract

Extratropical cyclones are identified and compared using data from four recent reanalyses for the winter periods in both hemispheres. Results show the largest differences occur between the older lower resolution 25-yr Japanese Reanalysis (JRA-25) when compared with the newer high resolution reanalyses, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere (SH). Spatial differences between the newest reanalyses are small in both hemispheres and generally not significant except in some common regions associated with cyclogenesis close to orography. Differences in the cyclone maximum intensitites are generally related to spatial resolution except in the NASA Modern Era Retrospective-Analysis for Research and Applications (NASA MERRA), which has larger intensities for several different measures. Matching storms between reanalyses shows the number matched between the ECMWF Interim Re-Analysis (ERA-Interim) and the other reanalyses is similar in the Northern Hemisphere (NH). In the SH the number matched between JRA-25 and ERA-Interim is lower than in the NH; however, for NASA MERRA and the NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (NCEP CFSR), the number matched is similar to the NH. The mean separation of the identically same cyclones is typically less than 2° geodesic in both hemispheres for the latest reanalyses, whereas JRA-25 compared with the other reanalyses has a broader distribution in the SH, indicating greater uncertainty. The instantaneous intensity differences for matched storms shows narrow distributions for pressure, while for winds and vorticity the distributions are much broader, indicating larger uncertainty typical of smaller-scale fields. Composite cyclone diagnostics show that cyclones are very similar between the reanalyses, with differences being related to the intensities, consistent with the intensity results. Overall, results show NH cyclones correspond well between reanalyses, with a significant improvement in the SH for the latest reanalyses, indicating a convergence between reanalyses for cyclone properties.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1175/2011jcli4097.1

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Metadata

Authors
Hodges, K. I., Lee, R. W., & Bengtsson, L.
Venue
Journal of Climate
Published
2011-09-15
Volume
24
Issue
18
Pages
4888-4906
ISSN
  • 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0442
OpenAlex
W2075604033
Cited by
355
References
1
FWCI
11.43
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.