Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

GDAS’s GCIP Energy Budgets

J. Roads Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California

Search for other papers by J. Roads in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
S. Chen Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California

Search for other papers by S. Chen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
M. Kanamitsu Climate Prediction Center, National Centers for Environmental Prediction, Washington, D.C.

Search for other papers by M. Kanamitsu in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
H. Juang Climate Prediction Center, National Centers for Environmental Prediction, Washington, D.C.

Search for other papers by H. Juang in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Jul 1997
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1997)054<1776:GSGEB>2.0.CO;2
Page(s):
1776–1794
Restricted access

Abstract

The National Centers for Environmental Prediction’s operational global data assimilation system’s (GDAS) atmospheric and surface thermodynamic energy cycles are presented for the Mississippi River basin where the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment Continental-Scale International Project (GCIP) is under way. At the surface, during the winter, incoming solar radiation is balanced by longwave cooling. During the summer, latent and sensible cooling are equally important. In the atmosphere, thermodynamic energy convergence is also important, especially during the winter. In most places, precipitation is largely balanced by thermodynamic energy divergence. Anomalously high surface temperatures appear to be mainly related to decreased surface evaporation. Anomalously high (low) precipitation variations may also be related to anomalously high thermodynamic energy divergence (convergence). Unfortunately, residual terms, which are slightly noticeable for the GCIP climatological balances, are especially noticeable for the anomalous atmospheric balances.

Corresponding author address: Dr. John O. Roads, Climate Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0224.

Abstract

The National Centers for Environmental Prediction’s operational global data assimilation system’s (GDAS) atmospheric and surface thermodynamic energy cycles are presented for the Mississippi River basin where the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment Continental-Scale International Project (GCIP) is under way. At the surface, during the winter, incoming solar radiation is balanced by longwave cooling. During the summer, latent and sensible cooling are equally important. In the atmosphere, thermodynamic energy convergence is also important, especially during the winter. In most places, precipitation is largely balanced by thermodynamic energy divergence. Anomalously high surface temperatures appear to be mainly related to decreased surface evaporation. Anomalously high (low) precipitation variations may also be related to anomalously high thermodynamic energy divergence (convergence). Unfortunately, residual terms, which are slightly noticeable for the GCIP climatological balances, are especially noticeable for the anomalous atmospheric balances.

Corresponding author address: Dr. John O. Roads, Climate Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0224.

Save
Cover Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences

  • Beljaars, A. C. M., P. Viterbo, and M. J. Miller, 1996: The anomalous rainfall over the United States during July 1993: Sensitivity to land surface parameterization and soil moisture anomalies. Mon. Wea. Rev.,124, 362–383.

  • Berbery, E. H., E. M. Rasmusson, and K. E. Mitchell, 1996: Studies of North American continental-scale hydrology using eta model forecast products. J. Geophys. Res.,101, 7305–7319.

  • Caplan, P. M., and G. H. White, 1989: Performance of the National Meteorological Center’s medium-range model. Wea. Forecasting,4, 391–400.

  • Chen, S. C., C. L. Norris, and J. O. Roads, 1996: Balancing the atmospheric hydrologic budget. J. Geophys. Res.,101, 7341–7358.

  • Fleagle, R. G., and J. A. Businger, 1963: An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics. Academic Press, 346 pp.

  • Georgakakos, K. P., D.-H. Bae, and D. R. Cayan, 1995: Hydroclimatology of continental watersheds, temporal analyses. Water Resour. Res.,31 (3), 655–675.

  • Huang, J., J. M. van den Dool, and K. Georgakakos, 1996: Analysis of model-calculated soil moisture over the United States (1931–93) and applications to long-range temperature forecasts. J. Climate,9, 1350–1362.

  • Iacobellis, S., and R. Somerville, 1991: Diagnostic modeling of the Indian monsoon onset. Part I: Model description and validation. J. Atmos. Sci.,48, 1949–1959.

  • Juang, H., and M. Kanamitsu, 1994: The NMC nested regional spectral model. Mon. Wea. Rev.,122, 3–26.

  • Kalnay, E., and R. Jenne, 1991: Summary of the NMC/NCAR Reanalysis Workshop of April 1991. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,72, 1897–1904.

  • ——, M. Kanamitsu, and W. E. Baker, 1990: Global numerical weather prediction at the National Meteorological Center. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,71, 1410–1428.

  • ——, and Coauthors, 1996: The NMC/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,77, 437–471.

  • Kanamitsu, M., and S. Saha, 1995: Spectral budget analysis of the short-range forecast error of the NMC MRF model. Mon. Wea. Rev.,123, 1834–1850.

  • ——, and ——, 1996: Systematic tendency error in budget calculations. Mon. Wea. Rev.,124, 1145–1160.

  • ——, J. C. Alpert, K. A. Campana, P. M. Caplan, D. G. Deaven, M. Iredell, B. Katz, H. L. Pan, J. Sela, and G. H. White, 1991: Recent changes implemented into the global forecast system at NMC. Wea. Forecasting,6, 425–435.

  • Kistler, R., E. Kalnay, and M. Kanamitsu, 1993: The NMC/NCAR CDAS reanalysis project. Proc. 18th Annual Climate Diagnostics Workshop, Boulder, CO, NOAA, 326–329.

  • Klinker, E., and P. D. Sardeshmukh, 1992: The diagnosis of mechanical dissipation in the atmosphere from large-scale balance requirements. J. Atmos. Sci.,49, 608–627.

  • Kunkel, K. E., S. A. Changnon, and J. R. Angel, 1994: Climate aspects of the 1993 upper Mississippi River basin flood. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,75, 811–822.

  • Mo, K. C., and R. W. Higgins, 1996: Large-scale atmospheric moisture transport as evaluated in the NMC/NCAR and NASA/DAO reanalysis. J. Climate,9, 1531–1545.

  • Morel, P., 1994: Scientific issues underlying the global energy and water cycle. Extended Abstracts, European Conf. on the Global Energy and Water Cycle, London, United Kingdom, The Royal Meteorological Society, 23 pp.

  • Newell, R. E., J W. Kidson, D. G. Vincent, G. J. Boer, J. R. Holton, J. M. Wallace, T. G. Dopplick, and A. C. Kyle, 1974: The General Circulation of the Tropical Atmosphere and Interactions with Extratropical Latitudes. Vol. 2. The MIT Press, 371 pp.

  • NOAA NMC Development Division, 1988: Documentation of the NMC Global Model. 244 pp. [Available from NOAA/NCEP Environmental Modeling Center, 5200 Auth Rd., WWB, Washington, DC 20233.].

  • Paegle, J., K. C. Mo, and J. Nogues-Paegle, 1996: Dependence of simulated precipitation on surface evaporation during the 1993 United States summer floods. Mon. Wea. Rev.,124, 345–361.

  • Ramanathan, V., B. R. Bartstrom, and E. F. Harrison, 1989: Climate and Earth’s radiation budget. Phys. Today,42, 22–32.

  • Rasmusson, E. M., 1967: Atmospheric water vapor transport and the water balance of North America. Part I. Characteristics of the water vapor flux field. Mon. Wea. Rev.,95, 403–426.

  • ——, 1968: Atmospheric water vapor transport and the water balance of North America. II. Large-scale water balance investigations. Mon. Wea. Rev.,96, 720–734.

  • Roads, J. O., S.-C. Chen, J. Kao, D. Langley, and G. Glatzmaier, 1992: Global aspects of the Los Alamos general circulation model hydrologic cycle. J. Geophys. Res.,97, 10 051–10 068.

  • ——, ——, A. Guetter, and K. Georgakakos, 1994: Large-scale aspects of the United States hydrologic cycle. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,75, 1589–1610.

  • ——, ——, and K. Ueyoshi, 1995: Comparison of NMC’s global pressure analysis to NCDC’s U.S. observations. J. Climate,8, 1410–1428.

  • Schubert, S., and Y. Chang, 1996: An objective method for inferring sources of model error. Mon. Wea. Rev.,124, 325–340.

  • ——, R. B. Rood, and J. Pfaendtner, 1993: An assimilated dataset for earth science applications. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,74, 2331–2342.

  • Sela, J. G., 1980: Spectral modeling at the National Meteorological Center. Mon. Wea. Rev.,108, 1279–1292.

  • ——, 1982: The NMC Spectral Model. NOAA Tech. Rep. NWS 30, 36 pp. [NTIS PB81 247256.].

  • Trenberth, K., 1991: Climate diagnostics from global analyses: Conservation of mass in ECMWF analyses. J. Climate,4, 707–722.

  • ——, and J. G. Olson, 1988: An evaluation and inter-comparison of global analyses from the National Meteorological Center and the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,69, 1047–1057.

  • ——, and C. J. Guillemot, 1995: Evaluation of the global atmospheric moisture budgets as seen from analysis. J. Climate,8, 2255–2272.

  • Wang, M., and J. Paegle, 1996: Impact of analysis uncertainty upon regional atmospheric moisture flux. J. Geophys. Res.,101, 7291–7303.

  • White, G. H., 1994: Diagnostics of atmospheric forcing from reanalysis. Proc. 19th Climate Diagnostics Workshop, College Park, MD, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 246–249.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1402 1091 36
PDF Downloads 70 30 1