Evaluation of hrcldas and era5 datasets for near-surface wind over hainan island and south china sea

Abstract

Near-surface wind data are particularly important for Hainan Island and the South China Sea, and there is a wide range of wind data sources. A detailed understanding of the reliability of these datasets can help us to carry out related research. In this study, the hourly near-surface wind data from the High-Resolution China Meteorological Administration (CMA) Land Data Assimilation System (HRCLDAS) and the fifth-generation ECMWF atmospheric reanalysis data (ERA5) were evaluated by comparison with the ground automatic meteorological observation data for Hainan Island and the South China Sea. The results are as follows: (1) the HRCLDAS and ERA5 near-surface wind data trend was basically the same as the observation data trend, but there was a smaller bias, smaller root-mean-square errors, and higher correlation coefficients between the near-surface wind data from HRCLDAS and the observations; (2) the quality of HRCLDAS and ERA5 near-surface wind data was better over the islands of the South China Sea than over Hainan Island land. However, over the coastal areas of Hainan Island and island stations near Sansha, the quality of the HRCLDAS near-surface wind data was better than that of ERA5; (3) the quality of HRCLDAS near-surface wind data was better than that of ERA5 over different types of landforms. The deviation of ERA5 and HRCLDAS wind speed was the largest along the coast, and the quality of the ERA5 wind direction data was poorest over the mountains, whereas that of HRCLDAS was poorest over hilly areas; (4) the accuracy of HRCLDAS at all wind levels was higher than that of ERA5. ERA5 significantly overestimated low-grade winds and underestimated high-grade winds. The accuracy of HRCLDAS wind ratings over the islands of the South China Sea was significantly higher than that over Hainan Island land, especially for the higher wind ratings; and (5) in the typhoon process, the simulation of wind by HRCLDAS was closer to the observations, and its simulation of higher wind speeds was more accurate than the ERA5 simulations.