Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 584

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Atmospheric Moisture Transports from Ocean to Land and Global Energy Flows in Reanalyses

Open access
Trenberth, Kevin E., Fasullo, John T., Mackaro, Jessica·2011·Journal of Climate
DOI 10.1175/2011jcli4171.1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

An assessment is made of the global energy and hydrological cycles from eight current atmospheric reanalyses and their depiction of changes over time. A brief evaluation of the water and energy cycles in the latest version of the NCAR climate model referred to as CCSM4 is also given. The focus is on the mean ocean, land, and global precipitation P; the corresponding evaporation E; their difference corresponding to the surface freshwater flux E–P; and the vertically integrated atmospheric moisture transports. Using the model-based P and E, the time- and area-average E–P for the oceans, P–E for land, and the moisture transport from ocean to land should all be identical but are not close in most reanalyses, and often differ significantly from observational estimates of the surface return flow based on net river discharge into the oceans. Their differences reveal outstanding issues with atmospheric models and their biases, which are manifested as analysis increments in the reanalyses. The NCAR CCSM4, along with most reanalysis models, the exception being MERRA, has too-intense water cycling (P and E) over the ocean although ocean-to-land transports are very close to observed. Precipitation from reanalyses that assimilate moisture from satellite observations exhibits large changes identified with the changes in the observing system, as new and improved temperature and water vapor channels are assimilated and, while P improves after about 2002, E–P does not. Discrepancies among hydrological cycle components arise from analysis increments that can add or subtract moisture. The large-scale moisture budget divergences are more stable in time and similar across reanalyses than model-based estimates of E–P. Results are consistent with the view that recycling of moisture is too large in most models and the lifetime of moisture is too short. For the energy cycle, most reanalyses have spurious imbalances of ~10 W m−2 within the atmosphere, and ~5–10 W m−2 in net fluxes into the surface and to space. Major improvements are needed in model treatment and assimilation of moisture, and surface fluxes from reanalyses should only be used with great caution.

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 · 10.1175/2011jcli4171.1

Cites

57 of 57 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

Cites

Cited by

See all 584

Metadata

Authors
Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T., & Mackaro, J.
Venue
Journal of Climate
Publisher
American Meteorological Society
Published
2011-09-15
Volume
24
Issue
18
Pages
4907-4924
ISSN
  • 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0442
DOI
10.1175/2011jcli4171.1
OpenAlex
W2019224842
Cited by
584
References
57
FWCI
30.53
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.