Evaluation of ERA5-Simulated Temperature and Its Extremes for Australia

Abstract

Atmospheric reanalysis products offer high-resolution and long-term gridded datasets that can often be used as an alternative or a supplement to observational data. Although more accessible than typical observational data and deemed fit for climate change studies, reanalysis data can show biases resulting from data assimilation approaches. Thus, a thorough evaluation of the reanalysis product over the region and metric of study is critical. Here, we evaluate the performance of the latest generation of ECMWF reanalysis, ERA5, in simulating mean and extreme temperatures over Australia for 1979–2020 versus high-quality gridded observations. We find ERA5 generally simulates maximum and minimum temperatures reasonably well (mean bias ~1.5 °C), even though it underestimates/overestimates the daily maximum/minimum temperatures, leading to a cold bias for Tmax and a warm bias for Tmin. ERA5 also underestimates the decadal warming trend in both Tmax and Tmin compared to the observations. Furthermore, ERA5 struggles to simulate the temporal variability of Tmin, leading to a markedly worse skill in Tmin than Tmax. In terms of extreme indices, ERA5 is skilled at capturing the spatial and temporal patterns and trends of extremes, albeit with the presence of biases in each index. This can partially be attributed to the warm bias in the minimum temperature. Overall, ERA5 captures the mean and extreme temperature indices over the Australian continent reasonably well, warranting its potential to supplement observations in aiding climate change-related studies, downscaling for boundary conditions, and climate model evaluation.