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

    Diagnostic Comparison of Meteorological Analyses during the 2002 Antarctic Winter

    Source: Monthly Weather Review:;2005:;volume( 133 ):;issue: 005::page 1261
    Author:
    Manney, Gloria L.
    ,
    Allen, Douglas R.
    ,
    Krüger, Kirstin
    ,
    Naujokat, Barbara
    ,
    Santee, Michelle L.
    ,
    Sabutis, Joseph L.
    ,
    Pawson, Steven
    ,
    Swinbank, Richard
    ,
    Randall, Cora E.
    ,
    Simmons, Adrian J.
    ,
    Long, Craig
    DOI: 10.1175/MWR2926.1
    Publisher: American Meteorological Society
    Abstract: Several meteorological datasets, including U.K. Met Office (MetO), European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), and NASA?s Goddard Earth Observation System (GEOS-4) analyses, are being used in studies of the 2002 Southern Hemisphere (SH) stratospheric winter and Antarctic major warming. Diagnostics are compared to assess how these studies may be affected by the meteorological data used. While the overall structure and evolution of temperatures, winds, and wave diagnostics in the different analyses provide a consistent picture of the large-scale dynamics of the SH 2002 winter, several significant differences may affect detailed studies. The NCEP?NCAR reanalysis (REAN) and NCEP?Department of Energy (DOE) reanalysis-2 (REAN-2) datasets are not recommended for detailed studies, especially those related to polar processing, because of lower-stratospheric temperature biases that result in underestimates of polar processing potential, and because their winds and wave diagnostics show increasing differences from other analyses between ?30 and 10 hPa (their top level). Southern Hemisphere polar stratospheric temperatures in the ECMWF 40-Yr Re-analysis (ERA-40) show unrealistic vertical structure, so this long-term reanalysis is also unsuited for quantitative studies. The NCEP/Climate Prediction Center (CPC) objective analyses give an inferior representation of the upper-stratospheric vortex. Polar vortex transport barriers are similar in all analyses, but there is large variation in the amount, patterns, and timing of mixing, even among the operational assimilated datasets (ECMWF, MetO, and GEOS-4). The higher-resolution GEOS-4 and ECMWF assimilations provide significantly better representation of filamentation and small-scale structure than the other analyses, even when fields gridded at reduced resolution are studied. The choice of which analysis to use is most critical for detailed transport studies (including polar process modeling) and studies involving synoptic evolution in the upper stratosphere. The operational assimilated datasets are better suited for most applications than the NCEP/CPC objective analyses and the reanalysis datasets (REAN/REAN-2 and ERA-40).
    • Download: (3.141Mb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Price: 5000 Rial
    • Statistics

      Diagnostic Comparison of Meteorological Analyses during the 2002 Antarctic Winter

    URI
    http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4228924
    Collections
    • Monthly Weather Review

    Show full item record

    contributor authorManney, Gloria L.
    contributor authorAllen, Douglas R.
    contributor authorKrüger, Kirstin
    contributor authorNaujokat, Barbara
    contributor authorSantee, Michelle L.
    contributor authorSabutis, Joseph L.
    contributor authorPawson, Steven
    contributor authorSwinbank, Richard
    contributor authorRandall, Cora E.
    contributor authorSimmons, Adrian J.
    contributor authorLong, Craig
    date accessioned2017-06-09T17:26:53Z
    date available2017-06-09T17:26:53Z
    date copyright2005/05/01
    date issued2005
    identifier issn0027-0644
    identifier otherams-85473.pdf
    identifier urihttp://onlinelibrary.yabesh.ir/handle/yetl/4228924
    description abstractSeveral meteorological datasets, including U.K. Met Office (MetO), European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), and NASA?s Goddard Earth Observation System (GEOS-4) analyses, are being used in studies of the 2002 Southern Hemisphere (SH) stratospheric winter and Antarctic major warming. Diagnostics are compared to assess how these studies may be affected by the meteorological data used. While the overall structure and evolution of temperatures, winds, and wave diagnostics in the different analyses provide a consistent picture of the large-scale dynamics of the SH 2002 winter, several significant differences may affect detailed studies. The NCEP?NCAR reanalysis (REAN) and NCEP?Department of Energy (DOE) reanalysis-2 (REAN-2) datasets are not recommended for detailed studies, especially those related to polar processing, because of lower-stratospheric temperature biases that result in underestimates of polar processing potential, and because their winds and wave diagnostics show increasing differences from other analyses between ?30 and 10 hPa (their top level). Southern Hemisphere polar stratospheric temperatures in the ECMWF 40-Yr Re-analysis (ERA-40) show unrealistic vertical structure, so this long-term reanalysis is also unsuited for quantitative studies. The NCEP/Climate Prediction Center (CPC) objective analyses give an inferior representation of the upper-stratospheric vortex. Polar vortex transport barriers are similar in all analyses, but there is large variation in the amount, patterns, and timing of mixing, even among the operational assimilated datasets (ECMWF, MetO, and GEOS-4). The higher-resolution GEOS-4 and ECMWF assimilations provide significantly better representation of filamentation and small-scale structure than the other analyses, even when fields gridded at reduced resolution are studied. The choice of which analysis to use is most critical for detailed transport studies (including polar process modeling) and studies involving synoptic evolution in the upper stratosphere. The operational assimilated datasets are better suited for most applications than the NCEP/CPC objective analyses and the reanalysis datasets (REAN/REAN-2 and ERA-40).
    publisherAmerican Meteorological Society
    titleDiagnostic Comparison of Meteorological Analyses during the 2002 Antarctic Winter
    typeJournal Paper
    journal volume133
    journal issue5
    journal titleMonthly Weather Review
    identifier doi10.1175/MWR2926.1
    journal fristpage1261
    journal lastpage1278
    treeMonthly Weather Review:;2005:;volume( 133 ):;issue: 005
    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