Surface temperature comparison of the Arctic winter MOSAiC observations, ERA5 reanalysis, and MODIS satellite retrieval

Atmospheric model systems, such as those used for weather forecast and reanalysis production, often have significant and systematic errors in their representation of the Arctic surface energy budget and its components. The newly available observation data of the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition (2019/2020) enable a range of model analyses and validation in order to advance our understanding of potential model deficiencies. In the present study, we analyze deficiencies in the surface radiative energy budget over Arctic sea ice in the ERA5 global atmospheric reanalysis by comparing against the winter MOSAiC campaign data, as well as, a pan-Arctic level-2 MODIS ice surface temperature remote sensing product. We find that ERA5 can simulate the timing of radiatively clear periods, though it is not able to distinguish the two observed radiative Arctic winter states, radiatively clear and opaquely cloudy, in the distribution of the net surface radiative budget. The ERA5 surface temperature over Arctic sea ice has a conditional error with a positive bias in radiatively clear conditions and a negative bias in opaquely cloudy conditions. The mean surface temperature error is 4 degrees C for radiatively clear situations at MOSAiC and up to 15 degrees C in some parts of the Arctic. The spatial variability of the surface temperature, given by 4 observation sites at MOSAiC, is not captured by ERA5 due to its spatial resolution but represented in the level-2 satellite product. The sensitivity analysis of possible error sources, using satellite products of snow depth and sea ice thickness, shows that the positive surface temperature errors during radiatively clear events are, to a large extent, caused by insufficient sea ice thickness and snow depth representation in the reanalysis system. A positive bias characterizes regions with ice thickness greater than 1.5 m, while the negative bias for thinner ice is partly compensated by the effect of snow.