Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics

, Volume 102, Issue 1–2, pp 87–96 | Cite as

Validation of ECMWF and DWD model analyses with buoy measurements over the Norwegian Sea

  • Andrea Lammert
  • Burghard Brümmer
  • Irina Ebbers
  • Gerd Müller
Original Paper

Abstract

As part of the Lofote Cyclone experiment (Lofoten Zyklonen Experiment) 21 drift buoys were deployed in a 700 km × 400 km area of the Norwegian Sea situated to the west of the Lofote Islands. The buoys measured sea-level pressure (SLP), surface air temperature (SAT), and sea surface temperature (SST) at hourly intervals for a 6-month period from March to August 2005. This unique data set is used to validate the operational model analyses of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and the German Weather Service [Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD)]. Comparisons were performed in both time and space. Generally, biases are small and amount to 0.2 hPa for SLP and −0.2 K for SAT. Temporal correlations are higher than 0.99 for SLP and 0.93 for SAT. Spatial correlations as a measure of pattern coincidence are lower then for temporal correlations, but still amount to values higher than 0.97 for SLP and 0.76 for SAT on average. SST, which is externally prescribed and not a model variable, shows surprisingly large and persistent errors of up to 6 K for latitudes above 76°N. This points towards basic errors in the SST source for both models. Taking all comparisons (SLP, SAT, and SST) together, agreement is slightly worse for DWD than for ECMWF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was founded by the German Science Foundation (DFG) under grant SFB 512 “Cyclones and the North Atlantic climate system”.

References

  1. Andersson A, Bakan S, Fennig K, Graßl H, Klepp CP, Schulz J (2007) Hamburg Ocean Atmosphere Parameters and Fluxes from Satellite Data—HOAPS-3—monthly mean. doi:10.1594/WDCC/HOAPS3_MONTHLY. World Data Center for Climate, Hamburg
  2. Bozzano R, Siccardi A, Schiano ME, Borghini M, Castellari S (2004) Comparison of ECMWF surface meteorology and buoy observations in the Ligurian Sea. Ann Geophys 22:317–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brümmer B, Thiemann S, Kirchgäßner A (2000) A cyclone statistics for the Arctic based on European Centrere-analysis data. Met Atm Phys 75(3–4):233–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dorman CE, Beardsley RC, Limeburner R, Varlamov SM, Caruso M, Dashko NA (2005) Summer atmospheric conditions over the Japan/East Sea. Deep Sea Res Part II 52:1393–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Emery WJ (2002) Air–sea interaction/sea surface temperature. In: Holton JP, Curry JA, Pyle J (eds) Encyclopedia of atmospheric sciences. Academic, London, pp 100–109Google Scholar
  6. Eymard L, Weill A, Bourras D, Guerin C, Borge PL, Lefevre JM (2003) Use of ship mean data for validating model and satellite flux fields during the FETCH experiment. J Geophys Res 108(C3):FET 8–1–8–20Google Scholar
  7. Graßl H, Jost V, Kumar R, Schulz J, Bauer P, Schluessel P (2000) The Hamburg Ocean–Atmosphere Parameteres and Fluxes from Satellite Data (HOAPS): a climatological atlas of satellite-derived air-sea-interaction parameters over the oceans. Technical report 312, available at http://www.hoaps.org, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg
  8. Hanna E, Valdes P (2001) Validation of ECMWF (re)analysis surface climate data, 1979-1998, for Greenland and implications for mass balance modelling of the Ice Sheet. Int J Clim 21(2):171–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Klepp CP, Bakan S, Graßl H (2005) Missing North Atlantic cyclonic precipitation in ECMWF numerical weather prediction and ERA-40 data detected through the satellite climatology HOAPS II. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 14(6)Google Scholar
  10. Makshtas A, Atkinson D, Kulakov M, Shutilin S, Krishfield R, Proshutinsky A (2007) Atmospheric forcing validation for modeling the central Arctic. Geophys Res Lett 34. doi:10.1029/2007GL031078
  11. Persson A, Grazzini F (2005) User guide to ECMWF forecast products. Tech. Rep. Meteorological Bulletin M3.2, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather ForecastsGoogle Scholar
  12. Schrodin R (2002) Quarterly report of the German NWP system. Technical report. Part 2: description of the German NWP system, German Weather Service, available at http://www.dwd.de
  13. Tisler P, Vihma T, Brümmer B, Müller G (2008) Modelling of warm-air advection over Arctic sea ice. Tellus (in press), available at http://hirlam.fmi.fi/jakelu/vihma2008/
  14. Tsukernik M, Kindig DN, Serreze MC (2007) Characteristics of winter cyclone activity in the northern North Atlantic: insights from observations and regional modeling. J Geophys Res 112(D). doi:10.1029/2006JD007184
  15. Weller RA, Anderson SP (1996) Surface meteorology and air-sea fluxes in the Western Equatorial Pacific warm pool during the TOGA Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Response Experiment. J Clim 9:1959–1990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Weller RA, Baumgartner MF, Josey SA, Fischer AS, Kindle JC (1998) Atmospheric forcing in the Arabian Sea during 1994–1995: observations and comparisons with climatology and models. Deep Sea Res Part II 45:1961–1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wernli H, Schwierz C (2006) Surface cyclones in the ERA-40 dataset (1958–2001). Part I: novel identification method and global climatology. J Atm Sci 63(10):2486–2507CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Lammert
    • 1
  • Burghard Brümmer
    • 1
  • Irina Ebbers
    • 1
  • Gerd Müller
    • 1
  1. 1.Meteorological InstituteUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations