Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 6 of 6 items for :
- Author or Editor: Cecilia Bitz x
- Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society x
- Refine by Access: All Content x
Polar regions have great sensitivity to climate forcing; however, understanding of the physical processes coupling the atmosphere and ocean in these regions is relatively poor. Improving our knowledge of high-latitude surface fluxes will require close collaboration among meteorologists, oceanographers, ice physicists, and climatologists, and between observationalists and modelers, as well as new combinations of in situ measurements and satellite remote sensing. This article describes the deficiencies in our current state of knowledge about air–sea surface fluxes in high latitudes, the sensitivity of various high-latitude processes to changes in surface fluxes, and the scientific requirements for surface fluxes at high latitudes. We inventory the reasons, both logistical and physical, why existing flux products do not meet these requirements. Capturing an annual cycle in fluxes requires that instruments function through long periods of cold polar darkness, often far from support services, in situations subject to icing and extreme wave conditions. Furthermore, frequent cloud cover at high latitudes restricts the availability of surface and atmospheric data from visible and infrared (IR) wavelength satellite sensors. Recommendations are made for improving high-latitude fluxes, including 1) acquiring more in situ observations, 2) developing improved satellite-flux-observing capabilities, 3) making observations and flux products more accessible, and 4) encouraging flux intercomparisons.
Polar regions have great sensitivity to climate forcing; however, understanding of the physical processes coupling the atmosphere and ocean in these regions is relatively poor. Improving our knowledge of high-latitude surface fluxes will require close collaboration among meteorologists, oceanographers, ice physicists, and climatologists, and between observationalists and modelers, as well as new combinations of in situ measurements and satellite remote sensing. This article describes the deficiencies in our current state of knowledge about air–sea surface fluxes in high latitudes, the sensitivity of various high-latitude processes to changes in surface fluxes, and the scientific requirements for surface fluxes at high latitudes. We inventory the reasons, both logistical and physical, why existing flux products do not meet these requirements. Capturing an annual cycle in fluxes requires that instruments function through long periods of cold polar darkness, often far from support services, in situations subject to icing and extreme wave conditions. Furthermore, frequent cloud cover at high latitudes restricts the availability of surface and atmospheric data from visible and infrared (IR) wavelength satellite sensors. Recommendations are made for improving high-latitude fluxes, including 1) acquiring more in situ observations, 2) developing improved satellite-flux-observing capabilities, 3) making observations and flux products more accessible, and 4) encouraging flux intercomparisons.
Abstract
Process-oriented diagnostics (PODs) aim to provide feedback for model developers through model analysis based on physical hypotheses. However, the step from a diagnostic based on relationships among variables, even when hypothesis driven, to specific guidance for revising model formulation or parameterizations can be substantial. The POD may provide more information than a purely performance-based metric, but a gap between POD principles and providing actionable information for specific model revisions can remain. Furthermore, in coordinating diagnostics development, there is a trade-off between freedom for the developer, aiming to capture innovation, and near-term utility to the modeling center. Best practices that allow for the former, while conforming to specifications that aid the latter, are important for community diagnostics development that leads to tangible model improvements. Promising directions to close the gap between principles and practice include the interaction of PODs with perturbed physics experiments and with more quantitative process models as well as the inclusion of personnel from modeling centers in diagnostics development groups for immediate feedback during climate model revisions. Examples are provided, along with best-practice recommendations, based on practical experience from the NOAA Model Diagnostics Task Force (MDTF). Common standards for metrics and diagnostics that have arisen from a collaboration between the MDTF and the Department of Energy’s Coordinated Model Evaluation Capability are advocated as a means of uniting community diagnostics efforts.
Abstract
Process-oriented diagnostics (PODs) aim to provide feedback for model developers through model analysis based on physical hypotheses. However, the step from a diagnostic based on relationships among variables, even when hypothesis driven, to specific guidance for revising model formulation or parameterizations can be substantial. The POD may provide more information than a purely performance-based metric, but a gap between POD principles and providing actionable information for specific model revisions can remain. Furthermore, in coordinating diagnostics development, there is a trade-off between freedom for the developer, aiming to capture innovation, and near-term utility to the modeling center. Best practices that allow for the former, while conforming to specifications that aid the latter, are important for community diagnostics development that leads to tangible model improvements. Promising directions to close the gap between principles and practice include the interaction of PODs with perturbed physics experiments and with more quantitative process models as well as the inclusion of personnel from modeling centers in diagnostics development groups for immediate feedback during climate model revisions. Examples are provided, along with best-practice recommendations, based on practical experience from the NOAA Model Diagnostics Task Force (MDTF). Common standards for metrics and diagnostics that have arisen from a collaboration between the MDTF and the Department of Energy’s Coordinated Model Evaluation Capability are advocated as a means of uniting community diagnostics efforts.
