Abstract
The three state-of-the-art global atmospheric reanalysis models—namely, ECMWF Interim Re-Analysis (ERA-Interim), Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA; NASA), and Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR; NCEP)—are analyzed and compared with independent observations in the period between 1989 and 2006. Comparison of precipitation and temperature estimates from the three models with gridded observations reveals large differences between the reanalyses and also of the observation datasets. A major source of uncertainty in the observations is the spatial distribution and change of the number of gauges over time. In South America, active measuring stations were reduced from 4267 to 390. The quality of precipitation estimates from the reanalyses strongly depends on the geographic location, as there are significant differences especially in tropical regions. The closure of the water cycle in the three reanalyses is analyzed by estimating long-term mean values for precipitation, evapotranspiration, surface runoff, and moisture flux divergence. Major shortcomings in the moisture budgets of the datasets are mainly due to inconsistencies of the net precipitation minus evaporation and evapotranspiration, respectively, (P − E) estimates over the oceans and landmasses. This imbalance largely originates from the assimilation of radiance sounding data from the NOAA-15 satellite, which results in an unrealistic increase of oceanic P − E in the MERRA and CFSR budgets. Overall, ERA-Interim shows both a comparatively reasonable closure of the terrestrial and atmospheric water balance and a reasonable agreement with the observation datasets. The limited performance of the three state-of-the-art reanalyses in reproducing the hydrological cycle, however, puts the use of these models for climate trend analyses and long-term water budget studies into question.
