Abstract: The reliability of the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) ERA-Interim reanalysis and the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) FNL analysis in East Antarctica were investigated by comparing observations of surface pressure, temperature, specific humidity, and winds collected in 2008 along the transverse route from Zhongshan Station to Dome A. Results showed that the surface temperatures of the ERA-Interim reanalysis were closer to observational data than those of the FNL analysis, with a monthly mean absolute deviation <1 °C in Antarctic coastal areas and <2 °C in interior regions. The temperatures of the FNL analysis were significantly warmer than observations on the interior plateau, especially in winter the positive biases can up to 8–10 °C. Therefore, the FNL analysis can not be directly used to study surface temperature change on the Antarctic Plateau. The surface pressures of the FNL analysis were much closer to observations than those of the ERA-Interim reanalysis, with monthly mean biases of ~1 hPa, while the ERA-Interim reanalysis showed a significant systemic low in coastal regions. The annual/seasonal averaged absolute biases of near surface wind speed between the ERA-Interim reanalysis, the FNL analysis, and observations were less than 1 m·s^-1 over coastal and katabatic regions, and about 2–4 m·s^-1 over the interior plateau, with absolute wind direction biases of <10°. In addition, the ERA-Interim reanalysis described katabatic winds more accurately than the FNL analysis.

Key words: Antarctic, ERA-Interim reanalysis, NCEP FNL analysis, accuracy, reliability