YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • AMS
    • Monthly Weather Review
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • AMS
    • Monthly Weather Review
    • 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 Possible Explanation of the Observed Persistence of Monthly Mean Circulation Anomalies

    Source: Monthly Weather Review:;1983:;volume( 111 ):;issue: 003::page 539
    Author:
    van den dool, H. M.
    DOI: 10.1175/1520-0493(1983)111<0539:APEOTO>2.0.CO;2
    Publisher: American Meteorological Society
    Abstract: The level of month-to-month persistence of anomalies in the monthly mean atmospheric circulation was determined from a 29-year data set of Northern Hemisphere analyses of 500 mb height, surface pressure and 500?1000 mb thickness. A well-defined annual march is found, with greatest persistence from January to February and from July to August. The minima occur in spring and fall. Expressed in a linear correlation coefficient the largest persistence amounts to no more than 0.3. A qualitative explanation for the double peak in the annual march was sought in linear theory. The response of a stationary linear atmospheric model to the forcing of an anomalous heat source depends on the properties of the basic state around which the model is linearized. Model runs were made with climatological mean basic states corresponding to all 12 calendar months. In all runs the forcing was kept the same. As climatology changes least from January to February and from July to August, the model response to the constant forcing then is almost 100% persistent. The persistence is low from April to May and from October to November because in these months the basic state changes rather drastically. Although the maxima in persistence on the monthly time scale in the observed circulation are indeed found in summer and winter, the level of persistence is far below 100%. This can be interpreted as observational evidence of the very large forcing of the time-mean atmosphere by high-frequency transient eddies. The forcing associated with long-lived anomalies in external factors (oceans, snow, etc.) seems to control only a small part of the observed anomalies in the atmospheric circulation.
    • Download: (494.3Kb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Price: 5000 Rial
    • Statistics

      A Possible Explanation of the Observed Persistence of Monthly Mean Circulation Anomalies

    URI
    http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4200865
    Collections
    • Monthly Weather Review

    Show full item record

    contributor authorvan den dool, H. M.
    date accessioned2017-06-09T16:04:15Z
    date available2017-06-09T16:04:15Z
    date copyright1983/03/01
    date issued1983
    identifier issn0027-0644
    identifier otherams-60219.pdf
    identifier urihttp://onlinelibrary.yabesh.ir/handle/yetl/4200865
    description abstractThe level of month-to-month persistence of anomalies in the monthly mean atmospheric circulation was determined from a 29-year data set of Northern Hemisphere analyses of 500 mb height, surface pressure and 500?1000 mb thickness. A well-defined annual march is found, with greatest persistence from January to February and from July to August. The minima occur in spring and fall. Expressed in a linear correlation coefficient the largest persistence amounts to no more than 0.3. A qualitative explanation for the double peak in the annual march was sought in linear theory. The response of a stationary linear atmospheric model to the forcing of an anomalous heat source depends on the properties of the basic state around which the model is linearized. Model runs were made with climatological mean basic states corresponding to all 12 calendar months. In all runs the forcing was kept the same. As climatology changes least from January to February and from July to August, the model response to the constant forcing then is almost 100% persistent. The persistence is low from April to May and from October to November because in these months the basic state changes rather drastically. Although the maxima in persistence on the monthly time scale in the observed circulation are indeed found in summer and winter, the level of persistence is far below 100%. This can be interpreted as observational evidence of the very large forcing of the time-mean atmosphere by high-frequency transient eddies. The forcing associated with long-lived anomalies in external factors (oceans, snow, etc.) seems to control only a small part of the observed anomalies in the atmospheric circulation.
    publisherAmerican Meteorological Society
    titleA Possible Explanation of the Observed Persistence of Monthly Mean Circulation Anomalies
    typeJournal Paper
    journal volume111
    journal issue3
    journal titleMonthly Weather Review
    identifier doi10.1175/1520-0493(1983)111<0539:APEOTO>2.0.CO;2
    journal fristpage539
    journal lastpage544
    treeMonthly Weather Review:;1983:;volume( 111 ):;issue: 003
    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