NCEP–DOE AMIP-II Reanalysis (R-2)

© Get Permissions
Full access

The NCEP–DOE Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP-II) reanalysis is a follow-on project to the “50-year” (1948–present) NCEP–NCAR Reanalysis Project. NCEP–DOE AMIP-II re-analysis covers the “20-year” satellite period of 1979 to the present and uses an updated forecast model, updated data assimilation system, improved diagnostic outputs, and fixes for the known processing problems of the NCEP–NCAR reanalysis. Only minor differences are found in the primary analysis variables such as free atmospheric geopotential height and winds in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics, while significant improvements upon NCEP–NCAR reanalysis are made in land surface parameters and land–ocean fluxes. This analysis can be used as a supplement to the NCEP–NCAR reanalysis especially where the original analysis has problems. The differences between the two analyses also provide a measure of uncertainty in current analyses.

CRD, SIO, University of California, San Diego, Lajolla, California

NCEP/CPC, Washington, DC

NCEP/EMC, Washington, DC

PCMDI, LLNL, Livermore, California

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Dr. Masao Kanamitsu, Climate Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD-0224, Lajolla, CA 92093-0224, E-mail: kana@ucsd.edu

The NCEP–DOE Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP-II) reanalysis is a follow-on project to the “50-year” (1948–present) NCEP–NCAR Reanalysis Project. NCEP–DOE AMIP-II re-analysis covers the “20-year” satellite period of 1979 to the present and uses an updated forecast model, updated data assimilation system, improved diagnostic outputs, and fixes for the known processing problems of the NCEP–NCAR reanalysis. Only minor differences are found in the primary analysis variables such as free atmospheric geopotential height and winds in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics, while significant improvements upon NCEP–NCAR reanalysis are made in land surface parameters and land–ocean fluxes. This analysis can be used as a supplement to the NCEP–NCAR reanalysis especially where the original analysis has problems. The differences between the two analyses also provide a measure of uncertainty in current analyses.

CRD, SIO, University of California, San Diego, Lajolla, California

NCEP/CPC, Washington, DC

NCEP/EMC, Washington, DC

PCMDI, LLNL, Livermore, California

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Dr. Masao Kanamitsu, Climate Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD-0224, Lajolla, CA 92093-0224, E-mail: kana@ucsd.edu
Save