Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

The Climate Signal in Regional Moisture Fluxes: A Comparison of Three Global Data Assimilation Products

Wei Min University Space Research Association, Seabrook, Maryland

Search for other papers by Wei Min in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
and
Siegfried Schubert Data Assimilation Office, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland

Search for other papers by Siegfried Schubert in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Oct 1997
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1997)010<2623:TCSIRM>2.0.CO;2
Page(s):
2623–2642
Restricted access

Abstract

This study assesses the quality of estimates of climate variability in moisture flux and convergence from threeassimilated datasets: two are reanalysis products generated at the Goddard Data Assimilation Office and theNational Centers for Environmental Prediction–National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the third consistsof the operational analyses generated at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF).The regions under study (the United States Great Plains, the Indian monsoon region, and Argentina east of theAndes) are characterized by frequent low-level jets and other interannual low-level wind variations tied to thelarge-scale flow. While the emphasis is on the reanalysis products, the comparison with the operational productis provided to help assess the improvements gained from a fixed analysis system.

All three analyses capture the main moisture flux anomalies associated with selected extreme climate (droughtand flood) events during the period 1985–93. The correspondence is strongest over the Great Plains and weakestover the Indian monsoon region reflecting differences in the observational coverage. For the reanalysis products,the uncertainties in the lower tropospheric winds is by far the dominant source of the discrepancies in themoisture flux anomalies in the middle latitude regions. Only in the Indian Monsoon region, where interannualvariability in the low-level winds is comparatively small, does the moisture bias play a substantial role. Incontrast, the comparisons with the operational product show differences in moisture that are comparable to thedifferences in the wind in all three regions.

Compared with the fluxes, the anomalous moisture convergences show substantially larger differences amongthe three products. The best agreement occurs over the Great Plains region where all three products showvertically integrated moisture convergence during the floods and divergence during the drought with differencesin magnitude of about 25%. The reanalysis products, in particular, show good agreement in depicting the differentroles of the mean flow and transients during the flood and drought periods. Differences between the threeproducts in the other two regions exceed 100% reflecting differences in the low-level jets and the large-scalecirculation patterns. The operational product tends to have locally larger amplitude convergence fields, whichaverage out in area-mean budgets: this appears to be at least in part due to errors in the surface pressure fieldsand aliasing from the higher resolution of the original ECMWF fields.

On average, the reanalysis products show higher coherence with each other than with the operational productin the estimates of interannual variability. This result is less clear in the Indian monsoon region where differencesin the input observations appear to be an important factor. The agreement in the anomalous convergence patternsis, however, still rather poor even over relatively data-dense regions such as the United States Great Plains.These differences are attributed to deficiencies in the assimilating general circulation model’s representations ofthe planetary boundary layer and orography, and a global observing system incapable of resolving the highlyconfined low-level winds associated with the climate anomalies.

* Current affiliation: General Science Corporation, Laurel, Maryland.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Wei Min, Code 910.3, Data Assimilation Office, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD20771.

Abstract

This study assesses the quality of estimates of climate variability in moisture flux and convergence from threeassimilated datasets: two are reanalysis products generated at the Goddard Data Assimilation Office and theNational Centers for Environmental Prediction–National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the third consistsof the operational analyses generated at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF).The regions under study (the United States Great Plains, the Indian monsoon region, and Argentina east of theAndes) are characterized by frequent low-level jets and other interannual low-level wind variations tied to thelarge-scale flow. While the emphasis is on the reanalysis products, the comparison with the operational productis provided to help assess the improvements gained from a fixed analysis system.

All three analyses capture the main moisture flux anomalies associated with selected extreme climate (droughtand flood) events during the period 1985–93. The correspondence is strongest over the Great Plains and weakestover the Indian monsoon region reflecting differences in the observational coverage. For the reanalysis products,the uncertainties in the lower tropospheric winds is by far the dominant source of the discrepancies in themoisture flux anomalies in the middle latitude regions. Only in the Indian Monsoon region, where interannualvariability in the low-level winds is comparatively small, does the moisture bias play a substantial role. Incontrast, the comparisons with the operational product show differences in moisture that are comparable to thedifferences in the wind in all three regions.

Compared with the fluxes, the anomalous moisture convergences show substantially larger differences amongthe three products. The best agreement occurs over the Great Plains region where all three products showvertically integrated moisture convergence during the floods and divergence during the drought with differencesin magnitude of about 25%. The reanalysis products, in particular, show good agreement in depicting the differentroles of the mean flow and transients during the flood and drought periods. Differences between the threeproducts in the other two regions exceed 100% reflecting differences in the low-level jets and the large-scalecirculation patterns. The operational product tends to have locally larger amplitude convergence fields, whichaverage out in area-mean budgets: this appears to be at least in part due to errors in the surface pressure fieldsand aliasing from the higher resolution of the original ECMWF fields.

On average, the reanalysis products show higher coherence with each other than with the operational productin the estimates of interannual variability. This result is less clear in the Indian monsoon region where differencesin the input observations appear to be an important factor. The agreement in the anomalous convergence patternsis, however, still rather poor even over relatively data-dense regions such as the United States Great Plains.These differences are attributed to deficiencies in the assimilating general circulation model’s representations ofthe planetary boundary layer and orography, and a global observing system incapable of resolving the highlyconfined low-level winds associated with the climate anomalies.

* Current affiliation: General Science Corporation, Laurel, Maryland.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Wei Min, Code 910.3, Data Assimilation Office, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD20771.

Save
Cover Journal of Climate
Journal of Climate

  • Arpe, K., 1990: Impacts of changes in the ECMWF analysis-forecasting scheme on the systematic error of the model. Ten Yearsof Medium-Range Weather Forecasting, Vol. 1, Shinfield Park,Reading, United Kingdom, European Center for Medium RangeWeather Forecasts, 69–114.

  • Benton, G. S., and M. A. Estoque, 1954: Water-vapor transfer overthe North American continent. J. Meteor.,11, 462–477.

  • Bloom, S. C., L. L. Takacs, A. M. DaSilva, and D. Ledvina, 1996:Data assimilation using incremental analysis updates. Mon. Wea.Rev.,124, 1256–1271.

  • Bonner, W. D., 1968: Climatology of the low level jet. Mon. Wea.Rev.,96, 833–850.

  • ——, and J. Paegle, 1970: Diurnal variations in the boundary layerwinds over the south-central United States in summer. Mon. Wea.Rev.,98, 735–744.

  • Entekhabi, D., and P. S. Eagleson, 1989: Land surface hydrologyparameterization for atmospheric general circulation models including subgrid scale spatial variability. J. Climate,2, 816–831.

  • Gibson, J. K., P. Kallberg, A. Nomura, and S. Uppala, 1994: TheECMWF re-analysis (ERA) project—Plans and current status.Preprints, 10th Int. Conf. on Interactive Information and Processing Systems for Meteorology, Oceanography and Hydrology,Nashville, TN, American Meteorological Society, 164–167.

  • Helfand, H. M., and J. C. Labraga, 1988: Design of a nonsingularlevel-2.5 second-order closure model for the prediction of atmospheric turbulence. J. Atmos. Sci.,45, 113–132.

  • ——, and S. D. Schubert, 1995: Climatology of the simulated GreatPlains low-level jet and its contribution to the continental moisture budget of the United States. J. Climate,8, 784–806.

  • Higgins, R. W., K. C. Mo, and S. D. Schubert, 1996: The moisturebudget of the central United States in spring as evaluated in theNMC/NCAR and the NASA/DAO reanalyses. Mon. Wea. Rev.,124, 939–963.

  • Hollingsworth, A., D. B. Shaw, P. Lönnberg, L. Illari, K. Arpe, andA. J. Simmons, 1986: Monitoring of observation and analysisquality by a data assimilation system. Mon. Wea. Rev.,114, 861–879.

  • Janowiak, J. E., and P. A. Arkin, 1991: Rainfall variations in thetropics during 1986–1989, as estimated from observations ofcloud-top temperature. J. Geophys. Res.,96, 3359–3373.

  • Kalnay, E., and Coauthors, 1995: The NMC/NCAR Reanalysis Project. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,77, 437–471.

  • Kanamitsu, M., 1989: Description of the NMC global data assimilation and forecast system. Wea. Forecasting,4, 334–342.

  • Kasahara, A., A. P. Mizzi, and L. J. Donner, 1994: Diabatic initialization for improvement in the tropical analysis of divergenceand moisture using satellite radiometric imagery data. Tellus,46A, 242–264.

  • Krishnamurti, T. N., J. Xue, H. S. Bedi, K. Ingles, and D. Oosterhof,1991: Physical initialization for numerical weather predictionover the tropics. Tellus,43AB, 53–81.

  • ——, H. S. Bedi, and K. Ingles, 1993: Physical initialization usingSSM/I rain rates. Tellus,45A, 247–269.

  • ——, G. Rohaly, and H. S. Bedi, 1994: On the improvement ofprecipitation forecast skill from physicalinitialization. Tellus,46A, 598–614.

  • LeComte, D., 1986: The return of the rain: The weather of 1985.Weatherwise,39, 8–15.

  • ——, 1993: Highlights around the world. Weatherwise,46, 14–17.

  • Louis, J. F., 1979: A parametric model of vertical eddy fluxes in theatmosphere. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,17, 187–205.

  • ——, M. Tiedtke, and J. F. Geleyn, 1982: A short history of the PBLparameterization at ECMWF. Proc. ECMWF Workshop on Planetary Boundary Layer Parameterization, Reading, United Kingdom, ECMWF, 59–80.

  • Lyon, B., and R. M. Dole, 1995: A diagnostic comparison of the1980 and 1988 U.S. summer heat wave-droughts. J. Climate,8,1658–1975.

  • Matsuyama, H., 1992: The water budget in the Amazon river basinduring the FGGE period. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan,70, 1071–1084.

  • ——, T. Oki, M. Shinoda, and K. Masuda, 1994: The seasonal changeof the Congo River Basin. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan,72, 281–299.

  • Mo, K. C., and R. W. Higgins, 1996: Large scale atmospheric watervapor transport as evaluated from the NMC/NCAR and theNASA/DAO reanalyses. J. Climate,9, 1531–1545.

  • ——, J. Nogues-Paegle, and J. Paegle, 1995: Physical mechanismsof the 1993 summer floods. J. Atmos. Sci.,52, 879–895.

  • Moorthi, S., and M. J. Suarez, 1992: Relaxed Arakawa–Schubert: Aparameterization of moist convection for general circulationmodels. Mon. Wea. Rev.,120, 978–1002.

  • Murakami, T., T. Nakazawa, and J. He, 1984: On the 40–50 dayoscillations during the 1979 Northern Hemisphere summer. PartII: Heat and moisture budget. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan,62, 469–484.

  • Namias, J., 1982: Anatomy of Great Plains protracted heat waves(especially the 1980 U.S. summer drought). Mon. Wea. Rev.,110, 824–838.

  • Paegle, J., 1984: Topographically bound low-level circulations. Riv.Meteor. Aeronaut.,44, 113–125.

  • ——, and T. Vukicevic, 1987: The analysis and forecast sensitivityof low-level mountain flows to input data. Preprints, FourthConf. on Mountain Meteorology, Seattle, WA, Amer. Meteor.Soc., 168–174.

  • Pan, H.-L., and L. Mahrt, 1987: Interaction between soil hydrologyand boundary-layer development. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,38,185–220.

  • ——, and W.-S. Wu, 1994: Implementing a mass flux convectionparameterization package for the NMC medium-range forecastmodel. Preprints, 10th Conf. on Numerical Weather Prediction,Portland, OR, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 96–98.

  • Park, C.-K., S. D. Schubert, D. J. Lamich, and Y. Kondratyeva, 1996: Monsoon rainfall in the GEOS-1 assimilation: Sensitivity to input data. Proc. 20th Annual Climate Diagnostics Workshop, Seattle, WA, 61–64.

  • Parrish, D. F., and J. C. Derber, 1992: The National MeteorologicalCenter’s spectral statistical interpolation analysis system. Mon.Wea. Rev.,120, 1747–1763.

  • Peixoto, J. P., and A. H. Oort, 1983: The atmospheric branch of thehydrological cycle and climate. Variations in the Global WaterBudget, A. Street-Perrott et al., Eds., D. Reidel, 5–65.

  • Pfaendtner, J., S. Bloom, D. Lamich, M. Seablom, M. Sienkiewicz,J. Stobie, and A. da Silva, 1995: Documentation of the GoddardEarth Observing System (GEOS) Data Assimilation System—Version 1. NASA Tech. Memo. 104606, Vol. 4, 44 pp. [Availablefrom Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771.].

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

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

  • Reynolds, W. R., and D. S. Marsico, 1993: An improved real-timeglobal sea surface temperature analysis. J. Climate,6, 114–119.

  • ——, and T. M. Smith, 1994: Improved global sea surface temperatureanalyses using optimum interpolation. J. Climate,7, 929–948.

  • Roads, J. O., S.-C. Chen, A. K. Guetter, and K. P. Georgakakos, 1994: Large-scale aspects of the United States hydrological cycle. Bull.Amer. Meteor. Soc.,75, 1589–1610.

  • Rosen, R. D., D. A. Salstein, and J. P. Peixoto, 1979: Variability inthe annual fields of large-scale atmospheric water vapor transport. Mon. Wea. Rev.,107, 26–37.

  • Schemm, J.-K., S. Schubert, J. Terry, and S. Bloom, 1992: Estimatesof monthly mean soil moisture for 1979–89. NASA Tech. Memo.104571, 252 pp. [Available from Goddard Space Flight Center,Greenbelt, MD 20771.].

  • Schubert, S. D., and R. B. Rood, 1995: Proceedings of the workshopon the GEOS-1 five-year assimilation. NASA Tech. Memo.104606, Vol. 7, 201 pp. [Available from Goddard Space FlightCenter, Greenbelt, MD 20771.].

  • ——, ——, and J. Pfaendtner, 1993: An assimilated dataset for earthscience applications. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,74, 2331–2342.

  • ——, C.-K, Park, C.-Y. Wu, W. Higgins, Y. Kondratyeva, A. Molod,L. Takacs, M. Seablom, and R. Rood, 1995: A multiyear assimilation with the GEOS-1 system: Overview and results. NASATech. Memo. 104606, Vol. 6, 183 pp. [Available from GoddardSpace Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771.].

  • Spencer, R., 1993: Global oceanic precipitation from the MSU during1979–1991, and comparisons to other climatologies. J. Climate,6, 1301–1326.

  • Stensrud, D. J., 1996: Importance of low-level jets to climate: Areview. J. Climate,9, 1698–1711.

  • Suarez, M. J., and L. L. Takacs, 1995: Documentation of the Aries-GEOS Dynamical Core:Version 2. NASA Tech. Memo. 104606,Vol. 5, 58 pp. [Available from Goddard Space Flight Center,Greenbelt, MD 20771.].

  • Takacs, L. L., A. Molod, and T. Wang, 1994: Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) General Circulation Model (GCM) Version 1. NASA Tech. Memo. 104606, Vol. 1, 100 pp. [Availablefrom Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771.].

  • Tiedtke, M., 1989: A comprehensive mass flux scheme for cumulusparameterization in large-scale models. Mon. Wea. Rev.,117,1777–1798.

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

  • ——, 1992: Global analyses from ECMWF and atlas of 1000 to 10mb circulation statistics. NCAR Tech. Note. NCAR/TN-373+STR, 191 pp. plus 24 fiche. [Available from NCAR, Boulder, CO80307.].

  • ——, 1995: Truncation and use of model-coordinate data. Tellus,47A, 287–303.

  • ——, and J. G. Olson, 1988: An evaluation and intercomparison ofglobal analyses from the National Meteorological Center and theEuropean Center for Medium Range Weather Forecasts. Bull.Amer. Meteor. Soc.,69, 1047–1057.

  • ——, and C. J. Guillemot, 1995: Evaluation of the global atmosphericmoisture budget as seen from analyses. J. Climate,8, 2255–2272.

  • Troen, I., and L. Mahrt, 1986: A simple model of the atmosphericboundary layer: Sensitivity to surface evaporation. Bound.-LayerMeteor.,37, 129–148.

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

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 606 344 45
PDF Downloads 104 39 4