| description abstract | The capability of blocking prediction is investigated with respect to four models of different subgrid scale parameterization packages, which were described in Part I. In order to assess the capability, blocking indices are defined, and threat and bias scores are set up for the predicted blocking index against the observation. Applying this evaluation scheme to the dataset of one-month forecasts for eight January cases, we conduct a study on the performance of blocking simulation. First, it is immediately disclosed that the systematic biases in this forecast set are overwhelmingly large, so that the blocking index has to be adjusted to this bias. One, of the major issues, suggested by Tibaldi and Molteni, is whether the systematic bias is generated by the failure of blocking forecasts. Overall, this study supports this assertion, despite the different definitions of blocking. The study also reveals that the A-model is inferior to the other three models, such as the E-model, with regard to blocking forecasts. The reason for this is that the E-model, for example, which includes turbulence closure parameterization, appears to provide an adequate conversion of low-frequency eddy potential to kinetic energy, and thereby produces a more reasonable amount of standing eddies related to the persistent ridges. It is also pointed out that the blocking activity in the winter Northern Hemisphere is manifested by a distinct subpolar peak in the meridional distribution of standing eddy kinetic energy. The E-model tends to generate a well-defined peak of this energy distribution. All models are deficient in expanding the zonal mean westerlies to higher latitudes, particularly the A-model. In this connection, a hypothesis is postulated on a precondition for blocking: the upstream westerlies prior to the onset have to be displaced relatively at lower latitude. In the successful cases of blocking forecast, the upstream westerlies at 40°?60°N are relatively weaker than those in the unsuccessful cases. | |
