Abstract

This paper investigates the vertical filtering of parameterized gravity wave pseudomomentum flux in the troposphere–stratosphere version of the Met Office Unified Model. Gravity wave forcing is parameterized using the Warner and McIntyre spectral gravity wave parameterization. The same amount of isotropic pseudomomentum flux per unit mass is launched from the planetary boundary layer at each grid point. The parameterization models the azimuthally dependent Doppler shifting and breaking of the gravity wave spectrum as it is filtered by the background atmosphere. The result is an anisotropic distribution of pseudomomentum flux among azimuthal sectors that varies greatly with altitude and location. This gives an idealized global climatology of nonorographic gravity waves. The filtering effect of the atmosphere in this climatology is diagnosed using the “zonal anisotropy.”

Results show areas where observational measurements could be targeted to find the most prominent features in the gravity wave field. Such areas include, for example, the summer stratosphere where zonal anisotropy is very large and where there is a significant localization in latitude and longitude of patches of high zonal anisotropy. Comparisons are also made with recent observational estimates of gravity wave fluxes and test whether wind filtering of a homogeneous, azimuthally isotropic source is enough to reproduce observed features of the gravity wave field.

Abstract

It is well known that the stratospheric quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) is forced by equatorial waves with different horizontal/vertical scales, including Kelvin waves, mixed Rossby–gravity (MRG) waves, inertial gravity waves (GWs), and mesoscale GWs, but the relative contribution of each wave is currently not very clear. Proper representation of these waves is critical to the simulation of the QBO in general circulation models (GCMs). In this study, the vertical resolution in the Beijing Climate Center Atmospheric General Circulation Model (BCC-AGCM) is increased to better represent large-scale waves, and a mesoscale GW parameterization scheme, which is coupled to the convective sources, is implemented to provide unresolved wave forcing of the QBO. Results show that BCC-AGCM can spontaneously generate the QBO with realistic periods, amplitudes, and asymmetric features between westerly and easterly phases. There are significant spatiotemporal variations of parameterized convective GWs, largely contributing to a great degree of variability in the simulated QBO. In the eastward wind shear of the QBO at 20 hPa, forcing provided by resolved waves is 0.1–0.2 m s⁻¹ day⁻¹ and forcing provided by parameterized GWs is ~0.15 m s⁻¹ day⁻¹. On the other hand, westward forcings by resolved waves and parameterized GWs are ~0.1 and 0.4–0.5 m s⁻¹ day⁻¹, respectively. It is inferred that the eastward forcing of the QBO is provided by both Kelvin waves and mesoscale convective GWs, whereas the westward forcing is largely provided by mesoscale GWs. MRG waves barely contribute to the formation of the QBO in the model.

Abstract

A mechanistic model simulation initialized on 14 September 2002, forced by 100-hPa geopotential heights from Met Office analyses, reproduced the dynamical features of the 2002 Antarctic major warming. The vortex split on ∼25 September; recovery after the warming, westward and equatorward tilting vortices, and strong baroclinic zones in temperature associated with a dipole pattern of upward and downward vertical velocities were all captured in the simulation. Model results and analyses show a pattern of strong upward wave propagation throughout the warming, with zonal wind deceleration throughout the stratosphere at high latitudes before the vortex split, continuing in the middle and upper stratosphere and spreading to lower latitudes after the split. Three-dimensional Eliassen–Palm fluxes show the largest upward and poleward wave propagation in the 0°–90°E sector prior to the vortex split (coincident with the location of strongest cyclogenesis at the model’s lower boundary), with an additional region of strong upward propagation developing near 180°–270°E. These characteristics are similar to those of Arctic wave-2 major warmings, except that during this warming, the vortex did not split below ∼600 K. The effects of poleward transport and mixing dominate modeled trace gas evolution through most of the mid- to high-latitude stratosphere, with a core region in the lower-stratospheric vortex where enhanced descent dominates and the vortex remains isolated. Strongly tilted vortices led to low-latitude air overlying vortex air, resulting in highly unusual trace gas profiles. Simulations driven with several meteorological datasets reproduced the major warming, but in others, stronger latitudinal gradients at high latitudes at the model boundary resulted in simulations without a complete vortex split in the midstratosphere. Numerous tests indicate very high sensitivity to the boundary fields, especially the wave-2 amplitude. Major warmings occurred for initial fields with stronger winds and larger vortices, but not smaller vortices, consistent with the initiation of wind deceleration by upward-propagating waves near the poleward edge of the region where wave 2 can propagate above the jet core. Thus, given the observed 100-hPa boundary forcing, stratospheric preconditioning is not needed to reproduce a major warming similar to that observed. The anomalously strong forcing in the lower stratosphere can be viewed as the primary direct cause of the major warming.