YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • AMS
    • Journal of Climate
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • AMS
    • Journal of Climate
    • View Item
    • All Fields
    • Source Title
    • Year
    • Publisher
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Author
    • DOI
    • ISBN
    Advanced Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Archive

    A Comparison of Five Numerical Weather Prediction Analysis Climatologies in Southern High Latitudes

    Source: Journal of Climate:;2001:;volume( 014 ):;issue: 001::page 30
    Author:
    Connolley, William M.
    ,
    Harangozo, Stephen A.
    DOI: 10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014<0030:ACOFNW>2.0.CO;2
    Publisher: American Meteorological Society
    Abstract: In this paper, numerical weather prediction analyses from four major centers are compared?the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (ABM), the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), the U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction?National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP?NCAR), and The Met. Office (UKMO). Two of the series?ECMWF reanalysis (ERA) and NCEP?NCAR reanalysis (NNR)?are ?reanalyses?; that is, the data have recently been processed through a consistent, modern analysis system. The other three?ABM, ECMWF operational (EOP), and UKMO?are archived from operational analyses. The primary focus in this paper is on the period of 1979?93, the period used for the reanalyses, and on climatology. However, ABM and NNR are also compared for the period before 1979, for which the evidence tends to favor NNR. The authors are concerned with basic variables?mean sea level pressure, height of the 500-hPa surface, and near-surface temperature?that are available from the basic analysis step, rather than more derived quantities (such as precipitation), which are available only from the forecast step. Direct comparisons against station observations, intercomparisons of the spatial pattern of the analyses, and intercomparisons of the temporal variation indicate that ERA, EOP, and UKMO are best for sea level pressure;that UKMO and EOP are best for 500-hPa height; and that none of the analyses perform well for near-surface temperature.
    • Download: (1.026Mb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Price: 5000 Rial
    • Statistics

      A Comparison of Five Numerical Weather Prediction Analysis Climatologies in Southern High Latitudes

    URI
    http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4196756
    Collections
    • Journal of Climate

    Show full item record

    contributor authorConnolley, William M.
    contributor authorHarangozo, Stephen A.
    date accessioned2017-06-09T15:54:24Z
    date available2017-06-09T15:54:24Z
    date copyright2001/01/01
    date issued2001
    identifier issn0894-8755
    identifier otherams-5652.pdf
    identifier urihttp://onlinelibrary.yabesh.ir/handle/yetl/4196756
    description abstractIn this paper, numerical weather prediction analyses from four major centers are compared?the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (ABM), the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), the U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction?National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP?NCAR), and The Met. Office (UKMO). Two of the series?ECMWF reanalysis (ERA) and NCEP?NCAR reanalysis (NNR)?are ?reanalyses?; that is, the data have recently been processed through a consistent, modern analysis system. The other three?ABM, ECMWF operational (EOP), and UKMO?are archived from operational analyses. The primary focus in this paper is on the period of 1979?93, the period used for the reanalyses, and on climatology. However, ABM and NNR are also compared for the period before 1979, for which the evidence tends to favor NNR. The authors are concerned with basic variables?mean sea level pressure, height of the 500-hPa surface, and near-surface temperature?that are available from the basic analysis step, rather than more derived quantities (such as precipitation), which are available only from the forecast step. Direct comparisons against station observations, intercomparisons of the spatial pattern of the analyses, and intercomparisons of the temporal variation indicate that ERA, EOP, and UKMO are best for sea level pressure;that UKMO and EOP are best for 500-hPa height; and that none of the analyses perform well for near-surface temperature.
    publisherAmerican Meteorological Society
    titleA Comparison of Five Numerical Weather Prediction Analysis Climatologies in Southern High Latitudes
    typeJournal Paper
    journal volume14
    journal issue1
    journal titleJournal of Climate
    identifier doi10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014<0030:ACOFNW>2.0.CO;2
    journal fristpage30
    journal lastpage44
    treeJournal of Climate:;2001:;volume( 014 ):;issue: 001
    contenttypeFulltext
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian
     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian