Impact of Various Processes on the Transient Evolution of Spectral Kinetic Energies

Heinz-Dieter Schilling Meteorological Institute, University of Bonn, Bonn, Federal Republic of Germany

Search for other papers by Heinz-Dieter Schilling in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

We are aware of a technical issue preventing figures and tables from showing in some newly published articles in the full-text HTML view.
While we are resolving the problem, please use the online PDF version of these articles to view figures and tables.

Abstract

Geopotential height fields for nine winters (1967/68–1975/76) and summers on three levels (300, 500, 1000 mb), provided by the German Weather Service, are used to compute daily budgets of kinetic energy (Km) for single zonal wavenumbers m within a quasi-geostrophic framework. The energetics are averaged over the depth of the troposphere and the latitudinal belt 40°N ≤ ϕ ≤ 85°N.

Inadequate field resolution by data, and inevitable model approximations justify regressive corrections of the energy conversion estimates, leading to upper-bound estimates of the fraction of kinetic energy variance explained by different conversions (hindcast skills). The results are

(i) Persistence is most important for the evolution of Km for m ≤ 4; the skill ranges from 76% to 59% (in winter). The importance is less for m ⩾ 5, according to the skills ranging from 51% to 43% (in winter).

(ii) For 1 ≤ m ≤ 4 the sum of energy conversions explains approximately 35%–45% of the variance of Km, left unexplained by persistence in winter. In this wave range the leading process is the nonlinear interaction with waves m ≤ 5, whereas conversions between Kz and Km as well as lateral boundary fluxes are of the least importance. The evolution of Km for m = 2,…,4 is unexpectedly well correlated to the conversion between available potential energies C(AzAm) which appears to be a good substitute for C(AmKm), which is proportional to the vertical sensible heatflux.

(iii) For waves with 5 ≤ m ≤ 8 the sum of conversions explains 30%–50% of the variance of Km, left unexplained by persistence in winter.

The baroclinic conversion C(AmKm) contributes the largest skill; however, C(AzAm) is a better indicator of baroclinic activity even in this wave range. The next largest impact on Km stems from nonlinear wave- wave interactions involving at least one other short wave with m = 6,…,12. The influence of C(KzKm) is insignificant in the wave range 5 ≤ m ≤ 8.

(iv) The total skill of our model (including persistency) ranges from 65% (synoptic scales) to 85% (ultralong waves) in winter.

(v) In summer, the amount of variance of Km, explained by different conversions, is generally lower than in winters, whereas the overall scale-dependent skill patterns are essentially preserved.

Abstract

Geopotential height fields for nine winters (1967/68–1975/76) and summers on three levels (300, 500, 1000 mb), provided by the German Weather Service, are used to compute daily budgets of kinetic energy (Km) for single zonal wavenumbers m within a quasi-geostrophic framework. The energetics are averaged over the depth of the troposphere and the latitudinal belt 40°N ≤ ϕ ≤ 85°N.

Inadequate field resolution by data, and inevitable model approximations justify regressive corrections of the energy conversion estimates, leading to upper-bound estimates of the fraction of kinetic energy variance explained by different conversions (hindcast skills). The results are

(i) Persistence is most important for the evolution of Km for m ≤ 4; the skill ranges from 76% to 59% (in winter). The importance is less for m ⩾ 5, according to the skills ranging from 51% to 43% (in winter).

(ii) For 1 ≤ m ≤ 4 the sum of energy conversions explains approximately 35%–45% of the variance of Km, left unexplained by persistence in winter. In this wave range the leading process is the nonlinear interaction with waves m ≤ 5, whereas conversions between Kz and Km as well as lateral boundary fluxes are of the least importance. The evolution of Km for m = 2,…,4 is unexpectedly well correlated to the conversion between available potential energies C(AzAm) which appears to be a good substitute for C(AmKm), which is proportional to the vertical sensible heatflux.

(iii) For waves with 5 ≤ m ≤ 8 the sum of conversions explains 30%–50% of the variance of Km, left unexplained by persistence in winter.

The baroclinic conversion C(AmKm) contributes the largest skill; however, C(AzAm) is a better indicator of baroclinic activity even in this wave range. The next largest impact on Km stems from nonlinear wave- wave interactions involving at least one other short wave with m = 6,…,12. The influence of C(KzKm) is insignificant in the wave range 5 ≤ m ≤ 8.

(iv) The total skill of our model (including persistency) ranges from 65% (synoptic scales) to 85% (ultralong waves) in winter.

(v) In summer, the amount of variance of Km, explained by different conversions, is generally lower than in winters, whereas the overall scale-dependent skill patterns are essentially preserved.

Save