Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for :

  • Author or Editor: Jan-Huey Chen x
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Linjiong Zhou
,
Shian-Jiann Lin
,
Jan-Huey Chen
,
Lucas M. Harris
,
Xi Chen
, and
Shannon L. Rees

Abstract

The Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) has developed a new variable-resolution global model with the ability to represent convective-scale features that serves as a prototype of the Next Generation Global Prediction System (NGGPS). The goal of this prediction system is to maintain the skill in large-scale features while simultaneously improving the prediction skill of convectively driven mesoscale phenomena. This paper demonstrates the new capability of this model in convective-scale prediction relative to the current operational Global Forecast System (GFS). This model uses the stretched-grid functionality of the Finite-Volume Cubed-Sphere Dynamical Core (FV3) to refine the global 13-km uniform-resolution model down to 4-km convection-permitting resolution over the contiguous United States (CONUS), and implements the GFDL single-moment 6-category cloud microphysics to improve the representation of moist processes. Statistics gathered from two years of simulations by the GFS and select configurations of the FV3-based model are carefully examined. The variable-resolution FV3-based model is shown to possess global forecast skill comparable with that of the operational GFS while quantitatively improving skill and better representing the diurnal cycle within the high-resolution area compared to the uniform mesh simulations. Forecasts of the occurrence of extreme precipitation rates over the southern Great Plains are also shown to improve with the variable-resolution model. Case studies are provided of a squall line and a hurricane to demonstrate the effectiveness of the variable-resolution model to simulate convective-scale phenomena.

Full access
Baoqiang Xiang
,
Lucas Harris
,
Thomas L. Delworth
,
Bin Wang
,
Guosen Chen
,
Jan-Huey Chen
,
Spencer K. Clark
,
William F. Cooke
,
Kun Gao
,
J. Jacob Huff
,
Liwei Jia
,
Nathaniel C. Johnson
,
Sarah B. Kapnick
,
Feiyu Lu
,
Colleen McHugh
,
Yongqiang Sun
,
Mingjing Tong
,
Xiaosong Yang
,
Fanrong Zeng
,
Ming Zhao
,
Linjiong Zhou
, and
Xiaqiong Zhou

Abstract

A subseasonal-to-seasonal (S2S) prediction system was recently developed using the GFDL Seamless System for Prediction and Earth System Research (SPEAR) global coupled model. Based on 20-yr hindcast results (2000–19), the boreal wintertime (November–April) Madden–Julian oscillation (MJO) prediction skill is revealed to reach 30 days measured before the anomaly correlation coefficient of the real-time multivariate (RMM) index drops to 0.5. However, when the MJO is partitioned into four distinct propagation patterns, the prediction range extends to 38, 31, and 31 days for the fast-propagating, slow-propagating, and jumping MJO patterns, respectively, but falls to 23 days for the standing MJO. A further improvement of MJO prediction requires attention to the standing MJO given its large gap with its potential predictability (38 days). The slow-propagating MJO detours southward when traversing the Maritime Continent (MC), and confronts the MC prediction barrier in the model, while the fast-propagating MJO moves across the central MC without this prediction barrier. The MJO diversity is modulated by stratospheric quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO): the standing (slow-propagating) MJO coincides with significant westerly (easterly) phases of QBO, partially explaining the contrasting MJO prediction skill between these two QBO phases. The SPEAR model shows its capability, beyond the propagation, in predicting their initiation for different types of MJO along with discrete precursory convection anomalies. The SPEAR model skillfully predicts the observed distinct teleconnections over the North Pacific and North America related to the standing, jumping, and fast-propagating MJO, but not the slow-propagating MJO. These findings highlight the complexities and challenges of incorporating MJO prediction into the operational prediction of meteorological variables.

Full access