Evaluation of Seven Different Atmospheric Reanalysis Products in the Arctic*

Atmospheric reanalyses depend on a mix of observations and model forecasts. In data-sparse regions such as the Arctic, the reanalysis solution is more dependent on the model structure, assumptions, and data assimilation methods than in data-rich regions. Applications such as the forcing of ice–ocean models are sensitive to the errors in reanalyses. Seven reanalysis datasets for the Arctic region are compared over the 30-yr period 1981–2010: National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)–National Center for Atmospheric ResearchReanalysis 1 (NCEP-R1) andNCEP–U.S. Department of EnergyReanalysis 2 (NCEP-R2), Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR), Twentieth-Century Reanalysis (20CR), Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA), ECMWF Interim Re-Analysis (ERA-Interim), and Japanese 25-year Reanalysis Project (JRA-25). Emphasis is placed on variables not observed directly including surface fluxes and precipitation and their trends. The monthly averaged surface temperatures, radiative fluxes, precipitation, andwind speed are compared to observed values to assess howwell the reanalysis data solutions capture the seasonal cycles. Three models stand out as being more consistent with independent observations: CFSR, MERRA, and ERA-Interim. A coupled ice–ocean model is forced with four of the datasets to determine how estimates of the ice thickness compare to observed values for each forcing and how the total ice volume differs among the simulations. Significant differences in the correlation of the simulated ice thickness with submarine measurements were found, with the MERRA products giving the best correlation (R 5 0.82). The trend in the total ice volume in September is greatest with MERRA (24.1 3 10 km decade) and least with CFSR (22.7 3 10 km decade).