Further Comparison of Two Synoptic Surface Wind and Pressure Analysis Methods

Jennifer M. Cram Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

Search for other papers by Jennifer M. Cram in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Roger A. Pielke Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

Search for other papers by Roger A. Pielke in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

The geostrophic stream and potential functions of Sangster and the derived flat pressure field of Pielke and Cram are further compared. A simple numerical experiment with an idealized mountain-atmosphere system compares the two methods and their sensitivity to lateral boundary conditions. The flat pressure field of Pielke and Cram is essentially equivalent to the streamfunction of Sangster, although the two methods have different boundary condition formulations and resulting different sensitivities to these boundary conditions.

Abstract

The geostrophic stream and potential functions of Sangster and the derived flat pressure field of Pielke and Cram are further compared. A simple numerical experiment with an idealized mountain-atmosphere system compares the two methods and their sensitivity to lateral boundary conditions. The flat pressure field of Pielke and Cram is essentially equivalent to the streamfunction of Sangster, although the two methods have different boundary condition formulations and resulting different sensitivities to these boundary conditions.

Save