English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Reanalysis near-surface wind fields from multiple reanalyses are potentiallyan important information source for wind energy applications.Inter-comparing reanalyses via employing independent observations can helpto guide users to useful spatio-temporal scales. Here we compare thestatistical properties of wind speeds observed at 210 traditionalmeteorological stations over Germany with the reanalyses' near-surfacefields, confining the analysis to the recent years (2007 to 2010). In thisperiod, the station time series in Germany can be expected to be mostlyhomogeneous. We compare with a regional reanalysis (COSMO-REA6) and twoglobal reanalyses, ERA-Interim and ERA-20C. We show that for the majority ofthe stations, the Weibull parameters of the daily mean wind speed frequencydistribution match remarkably well with the ones derived from the reanalysisfields. High correlations (larger than 0.9) can be found between stationsand reanalysis monthly mean wind speeds all over Germany. Generally, thecorrelation between the higher resolved COSMO-REA6 wind fields and stationobservations is highest, for both assimilated and non-assimilated (i.e.,independent) observations. As expected from the lower spatial resolution andreduced amount of data assimilated into ERA-20C, the correlation of monthlymeans decreases somewhat relative to the other reanalyses (in ourinvestigated period of 2007 to 2010). Still, the inter-annual variabilityconnected to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) found in the reanalysissurface wind anomalies is in accordance with the anomalies recorded by thestations.We discuss some typical examples where differences are found, e.g., wherethe mean wind distributions differ (probably related to either height ormodel topography differences) and where the correlations break down (becauseof unresolved local topography) which applies to a minority of stations. Wealso identified stations with homogeneity problems in the reported stationvalues, demonstrating how reanalyses can be applied to support qualitycontrol for the observed station data.Finally, as a demonstration of concept, we discuss how comparing feedbackfiles of the different reanalyses can guide users to useful scales ofvariability

Comparison of regional and global reanalysis near-surface winds with station observations over Germany