Show simple 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


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record