• Anderson, J. L., 1993: The climatology of blocking in a numerical forecast model. J. Climate,6, 1041–1056.

  • Augustine, S. J., S. L. Mullen, and D. P. Baumhefner, 1991: Examination of actual analysis differences for use in Monte Carlo forecasting. Preprints, 16th Annual Climate Diagnostics Workshop, Los Angeles, California, NOAA/NWS/NMC/CAC, 375–378.

  • Bottger, H., 1988: Forecasts of blocking and cyclone developments—Operational results during the winter of 1986/87. Seminar on The Nature and Prediction of Extratropical Weather Systems, ECMWF, 317–327. [Available from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Shinfield Park, Reading RG2 9AX, United Kingdom.].

  • Buizza, R., 1997: Potential forecast skill of ensemble prediction and spread and skill distributions of the ECMWF ensemble prediction system. Mon. Wea. Rev.,125, 99–119.

  • Colucci, S. J., and D. P. Baumhefner, 1996: Numerical prediction of the onset of blocking: A case study with forecast ensembles. Mon. Wea. Rev.,126, 773–784.

  • Daley, R., and T. Mayer, 1986: Estimates for global analysis error from the global weather experiment observational network. Mon. Wea. Rev.,114, 1642–1653.

  • Du, J., S. L. Mullen, and F. Sanders, 1997: Short-range ensemble forecasting of quantitative precipitation. Mon. Wea. Rev.,125, 2427–2459.

  • Errico, R. M., 1983: A guide to transform software for non-linear normal-mode initialization of the NCAR Community Forecast Model. NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-217+IA, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, 86 pp.

  • ——, and D. P. Baumhefner, 1987: Predictability experiments using a high-resolution limited-area model. Mon. Wea. Rev.,115, 488–504.

  • ——, and T. Vukicevic, 1992: Sensitivity analysis using an adjoint of the PSU-NCAR mesoscale model. Mon. Wea. Rev.,120, 1644–1660.

  • ——, and K. D. Raeder, 1999: An examination of the accuracy of the linearization of a mesoscale model with moist physics. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,125, 169–195.

  • Epstein, E. S, 1969: Stochastic dynamic prediction. Tellus,21, 739–759.

  • Farrell, B. F., 1989: Transient development in confluent and difluent flow. J. Atmos. Sci.,21, 3279–3288.

  • Hack, J. J., B. A. Boville, B. P. Briegleb, J. T. Kiehl, P. J. Rasch, and D. L. Williamson, 1993: A description of the NCAR Community Climate Model (CCM2). NCAR Tech. Note 382+STR, NCAR, Boulder, CO, 108 pp.

  • Hoskins, B. J., 1983: Modelling of transient eddies and their feedback on the mean flow. Large-Scale Dynamical Processes in the Atmosphere, B. J. Hoskins and R. P Pearce, Eds., Academic Press, 397 pp.

  • ——, M. E. McIntyre, and A. W. Robertson, 1985: On the use and significance of isentropic potential vorticity maps. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,111, 877–946.

  • Kallen, E., and X.-Y. Huang, 1988: The influence of isolated observations on short-range numerical weather forecasts. Tellus,40A, 324–336.

  • Kuo, Y.-H., and S. Low-Nam, 1990: Prediction of nine explosive cyclones over the western Atlantic with a regional model. Mon. Wea. Rev.,118, 3–25.

  • Langland, R. H., R. L. Elsberry, and R. M. Errico, 1996: Adjoint sensitivity of an idealized extratropical cyclone with moist physical processes. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,122, 1891–1920.

  • Lefevre, R. J., and J. W. Nielsen-Gammon, 1995: An objective climatology of mobile troughs in the Northern Hemisphere. Tellus,47A, 638–655.

  • Lorenz, E. N., 1982: Atmospheric predictability experiments with a large numerical model. Tellus,34, 505–513.

  • Mullen, S. L., and D. P. Baumhefner, 1988: The sensitivity of numerical simulations of explosive oceanic cyclogenesis to changes in physical parameterizations. Mon. Wea. Rev.,116, 2289–2339.

  • ——, and ——, 1989: The impact of initial condition uncertainty on numerical simulations of large-scale explosive cyclogenesis. Mon. Wea. Rev.,117, 2800–2821.

  • ——, and ——, 1994: Monte Carlo simulations of explosive cyclogenesis. Mon. Wea. Rev.,122, 1548–1567.

  • Murphy, A. H., 1971: A note on the Ranked Probability Score. J. Appl. Meteor.,10, 155–156.

  • Nutter, P. A., S. L. Mullen, and D. P. Baumhefner, 1998: The impact of initial condition uncertainty on numerical simulations of blocking. Mon. Wea. Rev.,126, 2482–2502.

  • Petterssen, S., and S. Smebye, 1971: On the development of extratropical cyclones. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,97, 457–482.

  • Rabier, F., E. Klinker, P. Courtier, and A. Hollingsworth, 1996: Sensitivity of forecast errors to initial conditions. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,122, 121–150.

  • Sanders, F., 1986: Explosive cyclogenesis in the west-central North Atlantic Ocean. Part I: Composite structure and mean behavior. Mon. Wea. Rev.,114, 1781–1794.

  • ——, 1992: Skill of operational models in cyclone prediction out to five days during ERICA. Wea. Forecasting,7, 3–25.

  • ——, and J. R. Gyakum, 1980: Synoptic-dynamic climatology of the“bomb.” Mon. Wea. Rev.,108, 1590–1606.

  • ——, and S. L. Mullen, 1996: The climatology of explosive cyclogenesis in two general circulation models. Mon. Wea. Rev.,124, 1948–1954.

  • Sinclair, M. R., 1994: An objective cyclone climatology for the Southern Hemisphere. Mon. Wea. Rev.,122, 2239–2256.

  • Tibaldi, S., and F. Molteni, 1990: On the operational predictability of blocking. Tellus,42A, 343–365.

  • ——, P. Ruti, E. Tosi, and M. Maruca, 1995: Operational predictability of winter blocking at ECMWF: An update. Ann. Geophys.,13, 305–317.

  • Tracton, M. S., 1990: Predictability and its relationship to scale interaction processes in blocking. Mon. Wea. Rev.,118, 1666–1695.

  • ——, and E. Kalnay, 1993: Operational ensemble prediction at the National Meteorological Center: Practical aspects. Wea. Forecasting,8, 379–398.

  • Wilks, D. S., 1995: Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences. Academic Press, 467 pp.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 15 15 5
PDF Downloads 5 5 0

Ensemble Simulations of Explosive Cyclogenesis at Ranges of 2–5 Days

View More View Less
  • 1 Marblehead, Massachusetts
  • | 2 Institute of Atmospheric Physics, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
  • | 3 National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
© Get Permissions
Restricted access

Abstract

Ensemble simulations of explosive cyclogenesis are examined in a lengthy run of a global general circulation model with the perfect ensemble context. Attention is focused on the day when the deepest low appeared. An ensemble of 31 members is obtained by integrating 30 additional runs starting from slightly perturbed initial conditions. The perturbations are randomly selected to represent equal approximations to the truth, given typical analysis differences between major centers. Ensembles are generated starting two, three, four, and five days prior to maximum depth. Two lows are contrasted, the deepest low near Kamchatka and a marginally explosive low over the central Pacific.

The early development of both systems was suppressed by their presence in the confluent entrance region of the Pacific winter jet. An intense low near Kamchatka eventually developed in each member of the ensemble at all projections, but the details of development varied from member to member and were related to the involvement of a surface perturbation coming up into the system from low latitudes. In contrast, cyclogenesis over the central Pacific occurred in some members of the ensemble but not at all in others. The difference in behavior of the two systems is reflected in a localized enhancement of the error growth of the planetary and synoptic scales for the central Pacific low and is related to the smaller horizontal scale of the central Pacific low.

Probabilistic estimates of precipitation quantity and surface wind speeds produced by the ensemble showed moderate skill at day 5 with respect to climatology, mainly away from the regions of most vigorous synoptic activity, when verified against individual ensemble members. Skill would be reduced if the ensemble mean proved to be more seriously in error as is the case for a forecast verified against observations.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Frederick Sanders, 9 Flint Street, Marblehead, MA 01945.

Email: FNMISander@aol.com

Abstract

Ensemble simulations of explosive cyclogenesis are examined in a lengthy run of a global general circulation model with the perfect ensemble context. Attention is focused on the day when the deepest low appeared. An ensemble of 31 members is obtained by integrating 30 additional runs starting from slightly perturbed initial conditions. The perturbations are randomly selected to represent equal approximations to the truth, given typical analysis differences between major centers. Ensembles are generated starting two, three, four, and five days prior to maximum depth. Two lows are contrasted, the deepest low near Kamchatka and a marginally explosive low over the central Pacific.

The early development of both systems was suppressed by their presence in the confluent entrance region of the Pacific winter jet. An intense low near Kamchatka eventually developed in each member of the ensemble at all projections, but the details of development varied from member to member and were related to the involvement of a surface perturbation coming up into the system from low latitudes. In contrast, cyclogenesis over the central Pacific occurred in some members of the ensemble but not at all in others. The difference in behavior of the two systems is reflected in a localized enhancement of the error growth of the planetary and synoptic scales for the central Pacific low and is related to the smaller horizontal scale of the central Pacific low.

Probabilistic estimates of precipitation quantity and surface wind speeds produced by the ensemble showed moderate skill at day 5 with respect to climatology, mainly away from the regions of most vigorous synoptic activity, when verified against individual ensemble members. Skill would be reduced if the ensemble mean proved to be more seriously in error as is the case for a forecast verified against observations.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Frederick Sanders, 9 Flint Street, Marblehead, MA 01945.

Email: FNMISander@aol.com

Save