Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 11 items for :

  • Forecasting techniques x
  • Multi-Scale Dynamics of Gravity Waves (MS-GWaves) x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All
Christopher G. Kruse, M. Joan Alexander, Lars Hoffmann, Annelize van Niekerk, Inna Polichtchouk, Julio T. Bacmeister, Laura Holt, Riwal Plougonven, Petr Šácha, Corwin Wright, Kaoru Sato, Ryosuke Shibuya, Sonja Gisinger, Manfred Ern, Catrin I. Meyer, and Olaf Stein

the MWs observed by AIRS over the period of interest ( Figs. 2 and 3 ). Two regional models [the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model and the Met Office’s Unified Model (UM)] and two global models [ECMWF’s Integrated Forecast System (IFS) and the German Weather Service’s Icosahedral Nonhydrostatic (ICON) model] were used to model the observed waves. Details of individual models’ configurations are summarized in Table 1 and described below. With the exception of the IFS, the number and

Restricted access
Victor C. Mayta and Ángel F. Adames

-hourly atmospheric variables from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts interim reanalysis (ERA-Interim, hereafter ERA-I; Dee et al. 2011 ) are used. The ERA-I data used have a horizontal resolution of 2.5° × 2.5°. We make use of the following ERA-I fields: horizontal winds ( u and υ ), and geopotential height ( z ) at low-level (850 hPa) and upper-level troposphere (200 hPa). The horizontal winds are also used to calculate velocity potential ( χ ) as the inverse Laplacian of the

Open access
Martina Bramberger, Andreas Dörnbrack, Henrike Wilms, Steffen Gemsa, Kevin Raynor, and Robert Sharman

and Ágústsson 2009 ; Lane et al. 2009 ; Sharman et al. 2012a ). Greenland is of particular importance as it is located underneath the highly frequented North Atlantic flight tracks connecting Europe and North America. The Graphical Turbulence Guidance (GTG) product provides automated, aircraft-type-independent turbulence forecasts for CAT and MWT at all flight levels (FL) from surface to the lower stratosphere (FL500; “500” indicates 50 000 ft, with 1 ft ≈ 0.3 m) ( Sharman et al. 2006 ; Sharman

Full access
David C. Fritts, Ronald B. Smith, Michael J. Taylor, James D. Doyle, Stephen D. Eckermann, Andreas Dörnbrack, Markus Rapp, Bifford P. Williams, P.-Dominique Pautet, Katrina Bossert, Neal R. Criddle, Carolyn A. Reynolds, P. Alex Reinecke, Michael Uddstrom, Michael J. Revell, Richard Turner, Bernd Kaifler, Johannes S. Wagner, Tyler Mixa, Christopher G. Kruse, Alison D. Nugent, Campbell D. Watson, Sonja Gisinger, Steven M. Smith, Ruth S. Lieberman, Brian Laughman, James J. Moore, William O. Brown, Julie A. Haggerty, Alison Rockwell, Gregory J. Stossmeister, Steven F. Williams, Gonzalo Hernandez, Damian J. Murphy, Andrew R. Klekociuk, Iain M. Reid, and Jun Ma

shown in Fig. 1 (bottom). Figure 2 shows the extent of all DEEPWAVE measurements in altitude and latitude. F ig . 2. North–south cross section showing the types of airborne and ground-based instruments contributing to DEEPWAVE measurements and their coverage in latitude and altitude. DEEPWAVE began with a test flight-planning exercise from 1 to 10 August 2013 to gain experience with forecasting and flight planning and to assess the reliability of such forecasts in preparation for the real field

Full access
Markus Rapp, Bernd Kaifler, Andreas Dörnbrack, Sonja Gisinger, Tyler Mixa, Robert Reichert, Natalie Kaifler, Stefanie Knobloch, Ramona Eckert, Norman Wildmann, Andreas Giez, Lukas Krasauskas, Peter Preusse, Markus Geldenhuys, Martin Riese, Wolfgang Woiwode, Felix Friedl-Vallon, Björn-Martin Sinnhuber, Alejandro de la Torre, Peter Alexander, Jose Luis Hormaechea, Diego Janches, Markus Garhammer, Jorge L. Chau, J. Federico Conte, Peter Hoor, and Andreas Engel

second section, we describe the research aircraft and its instruments dedicated to the measurements of GW properties, along with the ground based measurements in the region. We will introduce the forecast model tools used for flight planning as well as reanalysis fields which are being used for the interpretation of atmospheric measurements. In the third section, we describe the prevailing meteorological conditions under which the flights were conducted. Mission overview and initial promising results

Open access
Claudia Christine Stephan, Cornelia Strube, Daniel Klocke, Manfred Ern, Lars Hoffmann, Peter Preusse, and Hauke Schmidt

reduce uncertainties related to the parameterization of GWs is severely hindered by a lack of observational constraints. A single instrument or technique can only observe a certain part of the GW spectrum ( Alexander et al. 2010 ; Geller et al. 2013 ). In addition, the synthesis of available data is insufficient to construct a global reference for GW properties. In fact, many assumptions of GW parameterizations are derived from regional cloud-resolving simulations with grid spacings sufficiently

Open access
Sonja Gisinger, Andreas Dörnbrack, Vivien Matthias, James D. Doyle, Stephen D. Eckermann, Benedikt Ehard, Lars Hoffmann, Bernd Kaifler, Christopher G. Kruse, and Markus Rapp

. Data sources Operational analyses of the Integrated Forecast System (IFS) of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) are used to provide meteorological data to characterize the atmospheric situation. The 6-hourly operational analysis and hourly forecast fields of the IFS cycle 40r1 have a horizontal resolution on the reduced linear Gaussian grid of about 16 km (T L 1279) and 137 vertical model levels (L137) from the ground to ~80 km (0.01 hPa) with layer thicknesses gradually

Full access
Benedikt Ehard, Peggy Achtert, Andreas Dörnbrack, Sonja Gisinger, Jörg Gumbel, Mikhail Khaplanov, Markus Rapp, and Johannes Wagner

higher altitudes (e.g., Siskind 2014 ). Thereby, the wind field and the thermal structure of the middle atmosphere are modified (e.g., Lindzen 1981 ; Holton and Alexander 2000 ). Internal gravity waves have been measured and analyzed with a large variety of active and passive remote sensing techniques as well as with in situ observations. These observational tools include airborne and ground-based lidars (e.g., Alexander et al. 2011 ; Dörnbrack et al 2002 ; Rauthe et al. 2008 ; Williams et al

Full access
Tanja C. Portele, Andreas Dörnbrack, Johannes S. Wagner, Sonja Gisinger, Benedikt Ehard, Pierre-Dominique Pautet, and Markus Rapp

analyses valid at 0000, 0600, 1200, and 1800 UTC and 1-hourly high-resolution forecasts at intermediate lead times (+1, +2, +3, +4, +5, +7, +8, +9, +10, and +11 h) of the 0000 and 1200 UTC forecast runs of the Integrated Forecast System (IFS) of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) are further used to visualize the temporal evolution of the upstream conditions at 44.20°S, 167.50°E ( Fig. 1 ). The IFS cycle 40r1 has a horizontal resolution of about 16 km, 137 vertical model

Full access
Mozhgan Amiramjadi, Ali R. Mohebalhojeh, Mohammad Mirzaei, Christoph Zülicke, and Riwal Plougonven

European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Integrated Forecast System (IFS), for nonorographic gravity waves, the amplitude at source level is set to a globally uniform value and adjusted by a prescribed relation for latitude and resolution (see section 5.3 in ECMWF 2018 ). This is a gross simplification of spatial variability and the complete neglect of temporal variability in the wave emission process. Following earlier work by Zülicke and Peters (2008) , a new approach to

Full access