The accuracy of results reflected within ERA5 datasets has been shown to be significantly dependent on the location of the area being studied, with some areas known for having less reanalysis potential in comparison to others. Antarctica is a notable example of this, owing its lack of study potential to a lack of long-term direct observations, most of which are largely constrained to coastal areas  (Tetzner et al., 2019). Therefore, reanalysis is often used as the sole means to obtain reliable estimates of atmospheric structure through time by constraining a physical atmospheric model by use of what few observational records exist (Bracegirdle, 2013). Though we do not anticipate a lack of observations to be a significant issue in this study, there still remains some potential sources for significant biases and errors in our measurements, such as land use cover and change, which can have notable implications for factors such as albedo and rates of radiative surface temperature change (Li et al., 2023). From this observation, it stands to reason that heavily urbanised areas would frequently display higher temperature measurements due to the presence of the urban island heating effect, creating a potential positive skew of measurements unrepresentative of true temperature values. Furthermore, as explained previously,  there were a significant number of cases in which certain locations displayed particularly strong correlations with others. Given the lack of geological complexity within the study area, it stands to reason that there was noticeable error in the data, and that it was likely influenced by potential misreporting of station location.
Errors in station location can arise due to several factors, including inaccuracies in GPS signals, interference caused by multipath or atmospheric conditions, poor satellite geometry, errors with receiver clocks, or even deliberate interference. These variables can result in inaccuracies when calculating the precise position of a GPS receiver.
For location coordinates, noise can contribute to inaccuracies, causing slight variations or shifts in the reported location as shown in Figure 7. In the case of 2-meter surface temperature data, noise can introduce errors or biases into temperature readings, making it difficult to identify accurate temperature patterns and trends. This can impact the reliability of weather forecasts, climate studies, and other applications that rely on precise temperature data.

    4.2 Data Reliability and ERA Datasets

Owing to the relatively flat gradient of the locations of study surrounding Frankfurt and the high number of available weather stations there, we managed to obtain surface temperature measurements of relatively high accuracy within the city. This network of numerous, interconnected weather monitoring stations operate in a manner that optimises economic and social benefit that stands as a testament to the careful consideration given to their establishment (Amorim et al., 2012). In anticipation of the inherently random nature of temperature variations, the simulated noise levels were deemed necessary in accounting for this unpredictability, and indeed we were able to generate correlation values for each location at a given level of noise. However, as we extracted our chosen data solely from the ERA5 dataset, the accuracy of our analysis may have had the opportunity to improve in significant degrees if the dataset’s land-based counterpart, ERA5-Land (Gleixner et al., 2020), was used in conjunction with the data obtained in this study. This would have allowed for the potential identification of any non-surface variables, such as cloud cover, for any potential influence on surface temperature. This also may have potentially mitigated any significant lack of clarity in the data resulting from the coarse resolution of the ERA5 dataset (Gleixner et al., 2020).
We assess the synthetic dataset's precision, dependability, and general robustness to improve the data quality assessment. A range of factors were considered to evaluate the degree to which the data quality can be enhanced and maintained, including station movements, errors, and noise. The analysis in Figure 3 helps us pinpoint which locations were most sensitive or responsive to the introduction of noise, providing insights into how noise affects the correlation between temperature data and location coordinates for different weather stations. Noise, in this sense, refers to the unpredictable variations in the temperature data. For example, if location 1 has a correlation of 0.9633642, it means there is a strong positive variable (temperature) being measured at location 1 with low noise or random variability in the data.  

  4.3 Meteorological data loss

Weather radars often suffer from data loss issues, which limits their data quality and applications. The traditional weather radar missing data completion method based on radar physics and statistics has defects in various aspects (Gong, et al., 2023).Modern weather radars are powerful tools in today’s real-time weather monitoring. Thanks to their high spatial resolution and short scanning interval, radars can usually obtain more comprehensive and finer-grained observations in regions than rain gauges and satellites. Despite the advantages of radars, they suffer from the data-missing problem that limits their data quality. A significant cause of radar missing data is beam blockage, which occurs when radar beams are obstructed by terrain objects like mountains and buildings, resulting in wedge-shaped blind zones behind the objects. Some data is missing. This may also cause abnormal temperature data (Gong, et al., 2023). ⁤Besides beam blockage, other equally significant factors include the phenomenon of attenuation, whereby radar signals are weakened as they pass through intense rainfall, which leads to underestimations of rainfall and linked temperature data (Fabry, 1996). ⁤⁤These restrictions in radar technology can cause gaps in meteorological data, which could lead to inaccurate temperature results. ⁤

4.4 Local factors 

Due to the largely spherical shape of the Earth, it stands to reason that it receives unequal amounts of heat energy from the Sun across such a large spatial scale. However, the global-scale temperature regime is made even more nonlinear and inconsistent across several regions due to the influence of local meteorological and climatological controls over smaller-scale areas.
Local variations in topography are well known to exert significant control over, and bring about distortions in, small-scale temperature regimes over given locations (Zhu et al., 2021), which presents an obstacle in calculating the true values for surface air temperature. This observational gap in data may be evidently shown by separate stations as far apart as 3km given sufficient altitudinal differences (Zhu et al., 2021). The potential for trees to influence air flow and precipitation patterns brings to attention the land-use cover and change (LUCC) regime of the specified area. Research conducted by Li et al. (2023) demonstrates the cooling effect of reforestation efforts, with areas of grassland-to-forest conversion displaying lower daily maximum surface temperatures in summer and autumn over reforested areas of southern China. The degree of continentality (distance from the sea or ocean) of a given area must also be considered. Locations at a closer proximity to the coast are shown to experience variations in temperature in lesser magnitude than locations found in inland environments, due to the faster rate of temperature change observed in continental rock in comparison to the ocean, resulting in general decrease in land-surface temperature in areas closer to the ocean (Ning et al., 2018). This factor can result in temperature regimes that are inconsistent with the latitudinal location of a given region: for example,  the cities of Glasgow and Moscow are located at similar latitudes, but the location of the former city closer to the coast results in milder, warmer winters than that of the latter (BBC, n.d.).
    4.5 Future Consideration
ERA5 reanalysis studies are often hindered by a similar set of obstacles, such as complex terrain and a lack of in situ observations (Gleixner et al., 2020). And in the case of the ERA5 model itself, its resolution value of 0.25 degrees is considered too coarse for small-scale regional modelling and impact models (Gleixner et al., 2020) (though its land-only counterpart, ERA5-Land, is often used instead to counteract this limitation (Gleixner et al., 2020)). Nevertheless, ERA5 is widely agreed to be a vast improvement upon its predecessor, the ERA-interim dataset, on the grounds of precipitation measurements, as well as those of temperature (Gleixner et al., 2020). This will ultimately prove essential when observational values are needed in conjunction with multiple climate variables in order to, for example, model the natural variability of coupled systems (Trenberth et al., 2008). Whether or not any improvements in ERA5 will prove significant will depend on the outcome of future studies, which often test such newfound capabilities in regions whose climate is difficult to analyse, e.g. East Africa (Gleixner et al., 2020), which features complex terrain and frequently heavy cloud cover (Holmes et al., 2016) in addition to a sparsity of in situ measurements (Gleixner et al., 2020). A wealth of advantages obtained in any reanalysis study therefore allows for additional statistical experimentation to be performed, as is the case with our study, in which sufficient data was made available for the assimilation of random variation of surface temperature in our calculations. Due to this, we can state with more confidence that shifts in station location remain one of the most likely sources of error or bias in the data. Though another method to consider is one suggested by Almeida and Coelho (2023), involving the simulation of different climatic conditions in a study area to eliminate further uncertainties. In the case of this study, it may have proved useful in identifying further potential sources of skew in location correlation data. 

5. Conclusion

The study yielded valuable insights into the strengths and limitations of the ERA5 temperature dataset, especially in data quality assessment. The findings are significant in advancing the methodologies used to evaluate reanalysis products and underscore the need to consider the dataset's limitations when interpreting climate research outcomes. 
ERA5 reanalysis data is highly reliable and provides detailed information on global atmospheric conditions at high spatial (up to 0.25 degrees) and temporal (hourly) resolutions. It is possible to conduct comprehensive climate studies by considering various atmospheric variables, such as wind, humidity, precipitation, and temperature. ERA5 employs advanced data assimilation techniques, combining observational data with model outputs to represent atmospheric conditions more accurately.
Biases, also known as systematic errors, are commonly found in data-assimilation systems. All system components, including the forecast model, boundary conditions, observations, observation operators, and covariance models, can introduce, extrapolate, or amplify biases. To detect biases, differences between observations and their model-predicted equivalents can be monitored on the input side. At the same time, systematic features of the analysis increments can be examined on the output side. Identifying different sources of bias requires additional information, such as independent observations, knowledge of underlying causes, or hypotheses about the error characteristics of possible sources.
Most data assimilation systems do not correct biases during the analysis step, although developing bias-aware assimilation methods is conceptually straightforward. The main challenge is correctly attributing detected biases to their sources and developing applicable models for them. Assimilation may correct the wrong source when multiple sources produce similar biases. This risk increases when more degrees of freedom are added to the system. For example, in a weak-constraint variational analysis, parameters for radiance bias correction support the model-error correction. It is still being determined whether constraints on the correction terms can be designed to ensure that model and observation biases can always be correctly and simultaneously identified in the analysis.
A bias-aware analysis scheme designed to correct bias in either the background or the observations will reduce mean analysis increments by construction, but not necessarily for the correct reason. It is necessary to test whether the analysis has improved by verifying that the bias attribution is accurate. Figure 7 illustrates how a successful bias correction of the background during assimilation should lead to better analysis and reduced forecast errors. However, reducing the bias in the initial conditions may only improve the forecast in practice if the model itself is changed.
Model bias correction is particularly challenging because it is difficult to develop valuable representations for the biases or the mechanisms that cause them. Intermittent bias correction of background estimates in a sequential estimation scheme does not prevent the generation of bias during the integration of the model. Incremental bias correction schemes, which use bias estimates to correct model tendencies, may be more effective in guiding the model to an unbiased forecast, provided the corrections are physically meaningful.

6. Bibliography

Almeida, M. and Coelho, P. (2023). A first assessment of ERA5 and ERA5‐Land reanalysis air temperature in Portugal. International Journal of Climatology, 43(14), pp.6643-6663.
Amorim, A.M., Gonçalves, A.B., Nunes, L.M. and Sousa, A.J. (2012). Optimizing the location of weather monitoring stations using estimation uncertainty. International Journal of Climatology, 32(6), pp.941-952.
Anon, (2019). How Atmospheric Sounding Transformed Weather Prediction - NASA. [online] Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/history/how-atmospheric-sounding-transformed-weather-prediction-jdzlx/ [Accessed 5 Feb. 2024].
Auffhammer, M., Hsiang, S.M., Schlenker, W. and Sobel, A., 2013. Using weather data and climate model output in economic analyses of climate change. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy.
Baker, Z. (2017). Climate state: Science-state struggles and the formation of climate science in the US from the 1930s to 1960s. Social Studies of Science, 47(6), 861–887.
Baker, N. and Phillips, K. (2022). ‘Mares’ tails and mackerel scales’: The many bizarre ways humans have tried to predict the weather. (2022). ABC News. [online] 6 Jul. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-07/the-history-of-weather-forecasting/101181492.
Barry, R.G. and Chorley, R.J., 2009. Atmosphere, weather and climate. Routledge.
BBC (n.d.). Factors Affecting Climate - Factors Affecting Climate - CCEA - GCSE Geography Revision - CCEA. [online] BBC Bitesize. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zgyw4qt/revision/2.
Bengtsson, L. and Shukla, J., 1988. Integration of space and in situ observations to study global climate change. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 69(10), pp.1130-1143.
Bengtsson, L., Arkin, P., Berrisford, P., Bougeault, P., Folland, C.K., Gordon, C., Haines, K., Hodges, K.I., Jones, P., Kallberg, P. and Rayner, N., 2007. The need for a dynamical climate reanalysis. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 88(4), pp.495-501.
Bowman, D.M.J.S., Balch, J.K., Artaxo, P., et al. (2009). Fire in the Earth system. Science, 324(5926), 481-484
Bouktif, S., Fiaz, A., Ouni, A. and Serhani, M.A., 2018. Optimal deep learning lstm model for electric load forecasting using feature selection and genetic algorithm: Comparison with machine learning approaches. Energies, 11(7), p.1636.
Bracegirdle, T.J. (2013). Climatology and recent increase of westerly winds over the Amundsen Sea derived from six reanalyses. International Journal of  Climatology, 33, pp. 843-851
Che-Castaldo C, Crisafulli CM. Long-term monitoring of Mount St. Helens micrometeorology. Ecology. 2023 Mar;104(3):e3950. doi: 10.1002/ecy.3950. Epub 2023 Jan 6. PMID: 36484720.
Chen, G., Shi, Y., Wang, R., Ren, C., Ng, E., Fang, X. and Ren, Z., 2022. Integrating weather observations and local-climate-zone-based landscape patterns for regional hourly air temperature mapping using machine learning. Science of The Total Environment, 841, p.156737.
Cucchi, M., Weedon, G.P., Amici, A., Bellouin, N., Lange, S., Müller Schmied, H., Hersbach, H. and Buontempo, C., 2020. WFDE5: bias-adjusted ERA5 reanalysis data for impact studies. Earth System Science Data, 12(3), pp.2097-2120.
Dee, D.P., Balmaseda, M., Balsamo, G., Engelen, R., Simmons, A.J. and Thépaut, J.N., 2014. Toward a consistent reanalysis of the climate system. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 95(8), pp.1235-1248.
Doddy Clarke, E.; Griffin, S.; McDermott, F.; Monteiro Correia, J.; Sweeney, C. Which Reanalysis Dataset Should We Use for Renewable Energy Analysis in Ireland? Atmosphere 2021, 12, 624.
Edwards P.N (2010).  A VAST MACHINE: Computer models, climate data, and the politics of global warming. The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England.
Essa, Y.H., Cagnazzo, C., Madonna, F., Cristofanelli, P., Yang, C., Serva, F., Caporaso, L. and Santoleri, R., 2022. Intercomparison of Atmospheric Upper-Air Temperature From Recent Global Reanalysis Datasets. Frontiers in Earth Science, 10, p.935139.
Fabry, F. (1996). Radar Meteorology: Principles and Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Ghajarnia, N., Akbari, M., Saemian, P., Ehsani, M.R., Hosseini‐Moghari, S.M., Azizian, A., Kalantari, Z., Behrangi, A., Tourian, M.J., Klöve, B. and Haghighi, A.T., 2022. Evaluating the evolution of ECMWF precipitation products using observational data for Iran: From ERA40 to ERA5. Earth and Space Science, 9(10), p.e2022EA002352.
Gleixner, S., Demissie, T. and Diro, G.T., 2020. Did ERA5 improve temperature and precipitation reanalysis over East Africa?. Atmosphere, 11(9), p.996.
Gong, A.; Chen, H.; Ni, G. Improving the Completion of Weather Radar Missing Data with Deep Learning. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4568.
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz‐Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D. and Simmons, A., 2020. The ERA5 global reanalysis. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 146(730), pp.1999-2049.
Hoffmann, L., Günther, G., Li, D., Stein, O., Wu, X., Griessbach, S., Heng, Y., Konopka, P., Müller, R., Vogel, B. and Wright, J.S., 2019. From ERA-Interim to ERA5: the considerable impact of ECMWF's next-generation reanalysis on Lagrangian transport simulations. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19(5), pp.3097-3124.
Holmes, T.R., Hain, C.R., Anderson, M.C. and Crow, W.T. (2016). Cloud tolerance of remote-sensing technologies to measure land surface temperature. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20(8), pp.3263-3275.
Houghton, J., 2005. Global warming. Reports on progress in physics, 68(6), p.1343.
Hu, Q., Li, Z., Wang, L., Huang, Y., Wang, Y. and Li, L., 2019. Rainfall spatial estimations: A review from spatial interpolation to multi-source data merging. Water, 11(3), p.579
Huang, X., Han, S. and Shi, C., 2021. Multiscale assessments of three reanalysis temperature data systems over China. Agriculture, 11(12), p.1292.
Jiao, D., Xu, N., Yang, F. and Xu, K., 2021. Evaluation of spatial-temporal variation performance of ERA5 precipitation data in China. Scientific Reports, 11(1), p.17956.
Jones, P.G. and Thornton, P.K., 2013. Generating downscaled weather data from a suite of climate models for agricultural modelling applications. Agricultural Systems, 114, pp.1-5.
Kalnay, E., 2003. Atmospheric modeling, data assimilation, and predictability. Cambridge University Press.
Karl, T.R., Tarpley, J.D., Quayle, R.G., Diaz, H.F., Robinson, D.A. and Bradley, R.S., 1989. The recent climate record: What it can and cannot tell us. Reviews of Geophysics, 27(3), pp.405-430.
Kirsanov, A.; Rozinkina, I.; Rivin, G.; Zakharchenko, D.; Olchev, A. Effect of Natural Forest Fires on Regional Weather Conditions in Siberia. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 1133.
Li, Z., Gong, X., Liu, M., Tang, H., Yao, Y., Liu, M. and Yang, F., 2022. A Temperature Refinement Method Using the ERA5 Reanalysis Data. Atmosphere, 13(10), p.1622.
Li, X., Chen, H., Hua, W., Ma, H., Li, X., Sun, S., Lu, Y., Pang, X., Zhang, X. and Zhang, Q. (2023). Modeling the effects of realistic land cover changes on land surface temperatures over China. Climate Dynamics, 61(3), pp.1451-1474.
Maraun, D. and Widmann, M., 2018. Statistical downscaling and bias correction for climate research. Cambridge University Press.
Mauelshagen, F. (2014). Redefining historical climatology in the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene Review, 1(2), 171-204.
McNicholl, B., Lee, Y.H., Campbell, A.G. and Dev, S., 2021. Evaluating the reliability of air temperature from ERA5 reanalysis data. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 19, pp.1-5.
Muñoz-Sabater, J., Dutra, E., Agustí-Panareda, A., Albergel, C., Arduini, G., Balsamo, G., Boussetta, S., Choulga, M., Harrigan, S., Hersbach, H. and Martens, B. (2021). ERA5-Land: A state-of-the-art global reanalysis dataset for land applications. Earth system science data, 13(9), pp.4349-4383.
Ning, J., Gao, Z., Meng, R., Xu, F. and Gao, M. (2018). Analysis of relationships between land surface temperature and land use changes in the Yellow River Delta. Frontiers of earth science, 12, pp.444-456.
Oke, T.R. (1982). The energetic basis of the urban heat island. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 108(455), 1-24.
Parker, W.S., 2016. Reanalyses and observations: What’s the difference?. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 97(9), pp.1565-1572.
Pitman, A.J., 2003. The evolution of, and revolution in, land surface schemes designed for climate models. International Journal of Climatology: A Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 23(5), pp.479-510.
Ramirez-Villegas, J. and Challinor, A., 2012. Assessing relevant climate data for agricultural applications. Agricultural and forest meteorology, 161, pp.26-45
Robock, A., 2000. Volcanic eruptions and climate. Reviews of geophysics, 38(2), pp.191-219.
Rummukainen, M., 2012. Changes in climate and weather extremes in the 21st century. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(2), pp.115-129.
Schauberger, B., Jägermeyr, J. and Gornott, C., 2020. A systematic review of local to regional yield forecasting approaches and frequently used data resources. European Journal of Agronomy, 120, p.126153.
Salcedo-Sanz, S., Ghamisi, P., Piles, M., Werner, M., Cuadra, L., Moreno-Martínez, A., Izquierdo-Verdiguier, E., Muñoz-Marí, J., Mosavi, A. and Camps-Valls, G., 2020. Machine learning information fusion in Earth observation: A comprehensive review of methods, applications and data sources. Information Fusion, 63, pp.256-272.
Shi, H., Cao, X., Li, Q., Li, D., Sun, J., You, Z. and Sun, Q., 2021. Evaluating the accuracy of ERA5 wave reanalysis in the water around China. Journal of Ocean University of China, 20, pp.1-9.
Tetzner, D., Thomas, E. and Allen, C. (2019). A validation of ERA5 reanalysis data in the Southern Antarctic Peninsula—Ellsworth land region, and its implications for ice core studies. Geosciences, 9(7), p.289.
Trenberth, K.E. and Olson, J.G., 1988. An evaluation and intercomparison of global analyses from the National Meteorological Center and the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 69(9), pp.1047-1057.
Trenberth, K.E., Koike, T. and Onogi, K. (2008). Progress and prospects for reanalysis for weather and climate. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 89(26), pp.234-235.
Velikou, K., Lazoglou, G., Tolika, K. and Anagnostopoulou, C., 2022. Reliability of the ERA5 in replicating mean and extreme temperatures across Europe. Water, 14(4), p.543.
Wolfe, J., Mar 5,2000. www.earthdata.nasa.gov. [online]
[date of visit: 24 01 2024].
Yilmaz, M., 2023. Accuracy assessment of temperature trends from ERA5 and ERA5-Land. Science of The Total Environment, 856, p.159182.
Yu, Y., Xiao, W., Zhang, Z., Cheng, X., Hui, F. and Zhao, J., 2021. Evaluation of 2-m air temperature and surface temperature from ERA5 and ERA-I using buoy observations in the Arctic during 2010–2020. Remote Sensing, 13(14), p.2813.
Zhu, J., Xie, A., Qin, X., Wang, Y., Xu, B. and Wang, Y. (2021). An assessment of ERA5 reanalysis for Antarctic near-surface air temperature. Atmosphere, 12(2), p.217.