Global Climatologies of Fronts, Airmass Boundaries, and Airstream Boundaries: Why the Definition of “Front” Matters

Abstract

Climatologies of fronts, airmass boundaries, and airstream boundaries can be calculated using automated approaches on gridded data. Such approaches may require choices to define a front, including a quantity (or quantities) to diagnose the front, a mathematical function(s) that operates upon the quantity to produce a diagnostic field, a level(s) at which the field is calculated, and a minimum threshold(s) in the magnitude of the field. To understand how resulting climatologies depend upon these choices using a consistent dataset, ERA-Interim reanalyses from 1979 to 2016 are used to construct global monthly climatologies for various definitions of fronts and airstream boundaries from potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, and wind, including gradients, thermal front parameter, frontogenesis, and asymptotic contraction rate at the surface and 850 hPa. Maps of automated fronts are similar to manual analyses when about 10% of the map is identified as a front. Definitions of fronts that use potential temperature or frontogenesis produce climatologies similar to those of manually analyzed fronts with maxima along the major storm tracks and their seasonal migrations. In contrast, definitions that use equivalent potential temperature or the thermal front parameter produce fewer fronts at higher latitudes and more fronts at lower latitudes, more akin to airmass boundaries than fronts. Although surface fronts defined by thermodynamic quantities are more infrequent over the oceans than at 850 hPa, they are more frequent when using metrics that include the wind field (e.g., frontogenesis, asymptotic contraction rate).