Comparison of Surface Energy Fluxes from Global to Local Scale

Author:

Mayer Johannes1,Mayer Michael12,Haimberger Leopold1,Liu Chunlei34

Affiliation:

1. a Department of Meteorology and Geophysics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

2. b European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Bonn, Germany

3. c South China Sea Institute of Marine Meteorology, Guangdong Ocean University, Zhanjiang, China

4. d CMA-GDOU Joint Laboratory for Marine Meteorology, Guangdong Ocean University, Zhanjiang, China

Abstract

Abstract This study uses the ECMWF ERA5 reanalysis and observationally constrained top-of-the-atmosphere radiative fluxes to infer net surface energy fluxes covering 1985–2018, which can be further adjusted to match the observed mean land heat uptake. Various diagnostics are applied to provide error estimates of inferred fluxes on different spatial scales. For this purpose, adjusted as well as unadjusted inferred surface fluxes are compared with other commonly used flux products. On a regional scale, the oceanic energy budget of the North Atlantic between the RAPID array at 26.5°N and moorings located farther north (e.g., at the Greenland–Scotland Ridge) is evaluated. On the station scale, a comprehensive comparison of inferred and buoy-based fluxes is presented. Results indicate that global land and ocean averages of unadjusted inferred surface fluxes agree with the observed heat uptake to within 1 W m−2, while satellite-derived and model-based fluxes show large global mean biases. Furthermore, the oceanic energy budget of the North Atlantic is closed to within 2.7 (−0.2) W m−2 for the period 2005–09 when unadjusted (adjusted) inferred surface fluxes are employed. Indirect estimates of the 2004–16 mean oceanic heat transport at 26.5°N are 1.09 PW (1.17 PW with adjusted fluxes), which agrees well with observed RAPID transports. On the station scale, inferred fluxes exhibit a mean bias of −20.1 W m−2 when using buoy-based fluxes as reference, which confirms expectations that biases increase from global to local scales. However, buoy-based fluxes as reference are debatable, and are likely positively biased, suggesting that the station-scale bias of inferred fluxes is more likely on the order of −10 W m−2.

Funder

austrian science fund

fakultät für geowissenschaften, geographie und astronomie, universität wien

national natural science foundation of china

Publisher

American Meteorological Society

Subject

Atmospheric Science

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3