Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 10 of 17 items for
- Author or Editor: Curt Covey x
- Refine by Access: All Content x
Abstract
A numerical model of planetary-scale waves in Venus’ atmosphere is used to simulate observed wave-like cloud features such as the dark horizontal Y. The model is based on the linearized primitive equations. Observed variations of static stability and mean zonal wind as a function of altitude are included in the basic state. Preferred modes of oscillation are found by imposing forcing over a range of frequencies, and determining the frequencies at which atmospheric response is greatly enhanced. Preferred responses exist at frequencies which are observed for the Y and other wave-like features. The Y shape can be produced by a linear combination of two model output waves: a midlatitude Rossby wave and an equatorial Kelvin wave. In order to preserve the relative phase between the waves and maintain the Y, nonlinear coupling between the waves is needed. Both waves are upward propagating, similar to the upward propagating planetary waves in Earth's stratosphere. The Kelvin wave may be forced at any altitude, but the Rossby wave must be forced at cloud heights to avoid absorption at a critical level. The Kelvin wave transports westward momentum upward, and thus can act to maintain the strong westward zonal winds on Venus. The Rossby wave acts to decrease the equator-pole temperature difference and therefore would decelerate the zonal wind.
Abstract
A numerical model of planetary-scale waves in Venus’ atmosphere is used to simulate observed wave-like cloud features such as the dark horizontal Y. The model is based on the linearized primitive equations. Observed variations of static stability and mean zonal wind as a function of altitude are included in the basic state. Preferred modes of oscillation are found by imposing forcing over a range of frequencies, and determining the frequencies at which atmospheric response is greatly enhanced. Preferred responses exist at frequencies which are observed for the Y and other wave-like features. The Y shape can be produced by a linear combination of two model output waves: a midlatitude Rossby wave and an equatorial Kelvin wave. In order to preserve the relative phase between the waves and maintain the Y, nonlinear coupling between the waves is needed. Both waves are upward propagating, similar to the upward propagating planetary waves in Earth's stratosphere. The Kelvin wave may be forced at any altitude, but the Rossby wave must be forced at cloud heights to avoid absorption at a critical level. The Kelvin wave transports westward momentum upward, and thus can act to maintain the strong westward zonal winds on Venus. The Rossby wave acts to decrease the equator-pole temperature difference and therefore would decelerate the zonal wind.
Abstract
A linearized planetary scale wave model is used to investigate the effects of thermal and mechanical damping on atmospheric tides. When the damping rate β is comparable to the frequency of solar diurnal forcing &Omega (δ≳0.1ω), the circulation consists of three parts: a classical vertically propagating “atmospheric tide ” in the upper atmosphere, a simple thermally direct subsolar-to-antisolar circulation or “Halley cell” in most of the lower atmosphere, and finally, a reversed “anti-Halley cell” near the surface. The near-surface circulation produces horizontal divergence near the subsolar point. While tides are a frequently encountered phenomenon (Venus, Earth and Mars), there is so far no observational evidence of a Halley circulation in any planetary atmosphere. A subsolar-antisolar circulation might be possible in Venus'slowly rotating lower atmosphere if the mechanical dissipation time scale is of the order of or less than a Venusian day. Such a circulation could be a factor in maintaining the superrotation of Venus' upper atmosphere.
Abstract
A linearized planetary scale wave model is used to investigate the effects of thermal and mechanical damping on atmospheric tides. When the damping rate β is comparable to the frequency of solar diurnal forcing &Omega (δ≳0.1ω), the circulation consists of three parts: a classical vertically propagating “atmospheric tide ” in the upper atmosphere, a simple thermally direct subsolar-to-antisolar circulation or “Halley cell” in most of the lower atmosphere, and finally, a reversed “anti-Halley cell” near the surface. The near-surface circulation produces horizontal divergence near the subsolar point. While tides are a frequently encountered phenomenon (Venus, Earth and Mars), there is so far no observational evidence of a Halley circulation in any planetary atmosphere. A subsolar-antisolar circulation might be possible in Venus'slowly rotating lower atmosphere if the mechanical dissipation time scale is of the order of or less than a Venusian day. Such a circulation could be a factor in maintaining the superrotation of Venus' upper atmosphere.
Abstract
Although atmospheric tides driven by solar heating are readily detectable at the earth’s surface as variations in air pressure, their simulations in current coupled global climate models have not been fully examined. This work examines near-surface-pressure tides in climate models that contributed to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); it compares them with tides both from observations and from the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM), which extends from the earth’s surface to the thermosphere. Surprising consistency is found among observations and all model simulations, despite variation of the altitudes of model upper boundaries from 32 to 76 km in the IPCC models and at 135 km for WACCM. These results are consistent with previous suggestions that placing a model’s upper boundary at low altitude leads to partly compensating errors—such as reducing the forcing of the tides by ozone heating, but also introducing spurious waves at the upper boundary, which propagate to the surface.
Abstract
Although atmospheric tides driven by solar heating are readily detectable at the earth’s surface as variations in air pressure, their simulations in current coupled global climate models have not been fully examined. This work examines near-surface-pressure tides in climate models that contributed to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); it compares them with tides both from observations and from the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM), which extends from the earth’s surface to the thermosphere. Surprising consistency is found among observations and all model simulations, despite variation of the altitudes of model upper boundaries from 32 to 76 km in the IPCC models and at 135 km for WACCM. These results are consistent with previous suggestions that placing a model’s upper boundary at low altitude leads to partly compensating errors—such as reducing the forcing of the tides by ozone heating, but also introducing spurious waves at the upper boundary, which propagate to the surface.
Abstract
No Abstract available.
Abstract
No Abstract available.
Abstract
For atmospheric tides driven by solar heating, the database of climate model output used in the most recent assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirms and extends the authors’ earlier results based on the previous generation of models. Both the present study and the earlier one examine the surface pressure signature of the tides, but the new database removes a shortcoming of the earlier study in which model simulations were not strictly comparable to observations. The present study confirms an approximate consistency among observations and all model simulations, despite variation of model tops from 31 to 144 km. On its face, this result is surprising because the dominant (semidiurnal) component of the tides is forced mostly by ozone heating around 30–70-km altitude. Classical linear tide calculations and occasional numerical experimentation have long suggested that models with low tops achieve some consistency with observations by means of compensating errors, with wave reflection from the model top making up for reduced ozone forcing. Future work with the new database may confirm this hypothesis by additional classical calculations and analyses of the ozone heating profiles and wave reflection in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) models. The new generation of models also extends CMIP's purview to free-atmosphere fields including the middle atmosphere and above.
Abstract
For atmospheric tides driven by solar heating, the database of climate model output used in the most recent assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirms and extends the authors’ earlier results based on the previous generation of models. Both the present study and the earlier one examine the surface pressure signature of the tides, but the new database removes a shortcoming of the earlier study in which model simulations were not strictly comparable to observations. The present study confirms an approximate consistency among observations and all model simulations, despite variation of model tops from 31 to 144 km. On its face, this result is surprising because the dominant (semidiurnal) component of the tides is forced mostly by ozone heating around 30–70-km altitude. Classical linear tide calculations and occasional numerical experimentation have long suggested that models with low tops achieve some consistency with observations by means of compensating errors, with wave reflection from the model top making up for reduced ozone forcing. Future work with the new database may confirm this hypothesis by additional classical calculations and analyses of the ozone heating profiles and wave reflection in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) models. The new generation of models also extends CMIP's purview to free-atmosphere fields including the middle atmosphere and above.
Abstract
The diurnal and semidiurnal cycle of precipitation simulated from CMIP6 models during 1996–2005 are evaluated globally between 60°S and 60°N as well as at 10 selected locations representing three categories of diurnal cycle of precipitation: 1) afternoon precipitation over land, 2) early morning precipitation over ocean, and 3) nocturnal precipitation over land. Three satellite-based and two ground-based rainfall products are used to evaluate the climate models. Globally, the ensemble mean of CMIP6 models shows a diurnal phase of 3 to 4 h earlier over land and 1 to 2 h earlier over ocean when compared with the latest satellite products. These biases are in line with what were found in previous versions of climate models but reduced compared to the CMIP5 ensemble mean. Analysis at the selected locations complemented with in situ measurements further reinforces these results. Several CMIP6 models have shown a significant improvement in the diurnal cycle of precipitation compared to their CMIP5 counterparts, notably in delaying afternoon precipitation over land. This can be attributed to the use of more sophisticated convective parameterizations. Most models are still unable to capture the nocturnal peak associated with elevated convection and propagating mesoscale convective systems, with a few exceptions that allow convection to be initiated above the boundary layer to capture nocturnal elevated convection. We also quantify an encouraging consistency between the satellite- and ground-based precipitation measurements despite differing spatiotemporal resolutions and sampling periods, which provides confidence in using them to evaluate the diurnal and semidiurnal cycle of precipitation in climate models.
Abstract
The diurnal and semidiurnal cycle of precipitation simulated from CMIP6 models during 1996–2005 are evaluated globally between 60°S and 60°N as well as at 10 selected locations representing three categories of diurnal cycle of precipitation: 1) afternoon precipitation over land, 2) early morning precipitation over ocean, and 3) nocturnal precipitation over land. Three satellite-based and two ground-based rainfall products are used to evaluate the climate models. Globally, the ensemble mean of CMIP6 models shows a diurnal phase of 3 to 4 h earlier over land and 1 to 2 h earlier over ocean when compared with the latest satellite products. These biases are in line with what were found in previous versions of climate models but reduced compared to the CMIP5 ensemble mean. Analysis at the selected locations complemented with in situ measurements further reinforces these results. Several CMIP6 models have shown a significant improvement in the diurnal cycle of precipitation compared to their CMIP5 counterparts, notably in delaying afternoon precipitation over land. This can be attributed to the use of more sophisticated convective parameterizations. Most models are still unable to capture the nocturnal peak associated with elevated convection and propagating mesoscale convective systems, with a few exceptions that allow convection to be initiated above the boundary layer to capture nocturnal elevated convection. We also quantify an encouraging consistency between the satellite- and ground-based precipitation measurements despite differing spatiotemporal resolutions and sampling periods, which provides confidence in using them to evaluate the diurnal and semidiurnal cycle of precipitation in climate models.
Abstract
Metrics are proposed—that is, a few summary statistics that condense large amounts of data from observations or model simulations—encapsulating the diurnal cycle of precipitation. Vector area averaging of Fourier amplitude and phase produces useful information in a reasonably small number of harmonic dial plots, a procedure familiar from atmospheric tide research. The metrics cover most of the globe but down-weight high-latitude wintertime ocean areas where baroclinic waves are most prominent. This enables intercomparison of a large number of climate models with observations and with each other. The diurnal cycle of precipitation has features not encountered in typical climate model intercomparisons, notably the absence of meaningful “average model” results that can be displayed in a single two-dimensional map. Displaying one map per model guides development of the metrics proposed here by making it clear that land and ocean areas must be averaged separately, but interpreting maps from all models becomes problematic as the size of a multimodel ensemble increases.
Global diurnal metrics provide quick comparisons with observations and among models, using the most recent version of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). This includes, for the first time in CMIP, spatial resolutions comparable to global satellite observations. Consistent with earlier studies of resolution versus parameterization of the diurnal cycle, the longstanding tendency of models to produce rainfall too early in the day persists in the high-resolution simulations, as expected if the error is due to subgrid-scale physics.
Abstract
Metrics are proposed—that is, a few summary statistics that condense large amounts of data from observations or model simulations—encapsulating the diurnal cycle of precipitation. Vector area averaging of Fourier amplitude and phase produces useful information in a reasonably small number of harmonic dial plots, a procedure familiar from atmospheric tide research. The metrics cover most of the globe but down-weight high-latitude wintertime ocean areas where baroclinic waves are most prominent. This enables intercomparison of a large number of climate models with observations and with each other. The diurnal cycle of precipitation has features not encountered in typical climate model intercomparisons, notably the absence of meaningful “average model” results that can be displayed in a single two-dimensional map. Displaying one map per model guides development of the metrics proposed here by making it clear that land and ocean areas must be averaged separately, but interpreting maps from all models becomes problematic as the size of a multimodel ensemble increases.
Global diurnal metrics provide quick comparisons with observations and among models, using the most recent version of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). This includes, for the first time in CMIP, spatial resolutions comparable to global satellite observations. Consistent with earlier studies of resolution versus parameterization of the diurnal cycle, the longstanding tendency of models to produce rainfall too early in the day persists in the high-resolution simulations, as expected if the error is due to subgrid-scale physics.
A coordinated set of global coupled climate model [atmosphere–ocean general circulation model (AOGCM)] experiments for twentieth- and twenty-first-century climate, as well as several climate change commitment and other experiments, was run by 16 modeling groups from 11 countries with 23 models for assessment in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Since the assessment was completed, output from another model has been added to the dataset, so the participation is now 17 groups from 12 countries with 24 models. This effort, as well as the subsequent analysis phase, was organized by the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) Climate Variability and Predictability (CLIVAR) Working Group on Coupled Models (WGCM) Climate Simulation Panel, and constitutes the third phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3). The dataset is called the WCRP CMIP3 multimodel dataset, and represents the largest and most comprehensive international global coupled climate model experiment and multimodel analysis effort ever attempted. As of March 2007, the Program for Climate Model Diagnostics and Intercomparison (PCMDI) has collected, archived, and served roughly 32 TB of model data. With oversight from the panel, the multimodel data were made openly available from PCMDI for analysis and academic applications. Over 171 TB of data had been downloaded among the more than 1000 registered users to date. Over 200 journal articles, based in part on the dataset, have been published AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY so far. Though initially aimed at the IPCC AR4, this unique and valuable resource will continue to be maintained for at least the next several years. Never before has such an extensive set of climate model simulations been made available to the international climate science community for study. The ready access to the multimodel dataset opens up these types of model analyses to researchers, including students, who previously could not obtain state-of-the-art climate model output, and thus represents a new era in climate change research. As a direct consequence, these ongoing studies are increasing the body of knowledge regarding our understanding of how the climate system currently works, and how it may change in the future.
A coordinated set of global coupled climate model [atmosphere–ocean general circulation model (AOGCM)] experiments for twentieth- and twenty-first-century climate, as well as several climate change commitment and other experiments, was run by 16 modeling groups from 11 countries with 23 models for assessment in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Since the assessment was completed, output from another model has been added to the dataset, so the participation is now 17 groups from 12 countries with 24 models. This effort, as well as the subsequent analysis phase, was organized by the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) Climate Variability and Predictability (CLIVAR) Working Group on Coupled Models (WGCM) Climate Simulation Panel, and constitutes the third phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3). The dataset is called the WCRP CMIP3 multimodel dataset, and represents the largest and most comprehensive international global coupled climate model experiment and multimodel analysis effort ever attempted. As of March 2007, the Program for Climate Model Diagnostics and Intercomparison (PCMDI) has collected, archived, and served roughly 32 TB of model data. With oversight from the panel, the multimodel data were made openly available from PCMDI for analysis and academic applications. Over 171 TB of data had been downloaded among the more than 1000 registered users to date. Over 200 journal articles, based in part on the dataset, have been published AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY so far. Though initially aimed at the IPCC AR4, this unique and valuable resource will continue to be maintained for at least the next several years. Never before has such an extensive set of climate model simulations been made available to the international climate science community for study. The ready access to the multimodel dataset opens up these types of model analyses to researchers, including students, who previously could not obtain state-of-the-art climate model output, and thus represents a new era in climate change research. As a direct consequence, these ongoing studies are increasing the body of knowledge regarding our understanding of how the climate system currently works, and how it may change in the future.
The Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP), initiated in 1989 under the auspices of the World Climate Research Programme, undertook the systematic validation, diagnosis, and intercomparison of the performance of atmospheric general circulation models. For this purpose all models were required to simulate the evolution of the climate during the decade 1979–88, subject to the observed monthly average temperature and sea ice and a common prescribed atmospheric CO2 concentration and solar constant. By 1995, 31 modeling groups, representing virtually the entire international atmospheric modeling community, had contributed the required standard output of the monthly means of selected statistics. These data have been analyzed by the participating modeling groups, by the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, and by the more than two dozen AMIP diagnostic subprojects that have been established to examine specific aspects of the models' performance. Here the analysis and validation of the AMIP results as a whole are summarized in order to document the overall performance of atmospheric general circulation–climate models as of the early 1990s. The infrastructure and plans for continuation of the AMIP project are also reported on.
Although there are apparent model outliers in each simulated variable examined, validation of the AMIP models' ensemble mean shows that the average large-scale seasonal distributions of pressure, temperature, and circulation are reasonably close to what are believed to be the best observational estimates available. The large-scale structure of the ensemble mean precipitation and ocean surface heat flux also resemble the observed estimates but show particularly large intermodel differences in low latitudes. The total cloudiness, on the other hand, is rather poorly simulated, especially in the Southern Hemisphere. The models' simulation of the seasonal cycle (as represented by the amplitude and phase of the first annual harmonic of sea level pressure) closely resembles the observed variation in almost all regions. The ensemble's simulation of the interannual variability of sea level pressure in the tropical Pacific is reasonably close to that observed (except for its underestimate of the amplitude of major El Niños), while the interannual variability is less well simulated in midlatitudes. When analyzed in terms of the variability of the evolution of their combined space–time patterns in comparison to observations, the AMIP models are seen to exhibit a wide range of accuracy, with no single model performing best in all respects considered.
Analysis of the subset of the original AMIP models for which revised versions have subsequently been used to revisit the experiment shows a substantial reduction of the models' systematic errors in simulating cloudiness but only a slight reduction of the mean seasonal errors of most other variables. In order to understand better the nature of these errors and to accelerate the rate of model improvement, an expanded and continuing project (AMIP II) is being undertaken in which analysis and intercomparison will address a wider range of variables and processes, using an improved diagnostic and experimental infrastructure.
The Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP), initiated in 1989 under the auspices of the World Climate Research Programme, undertook the systematic validation, diagnosis, and intercomparison of the performance of atmospheric general circulation models. For this purpose all models were required to simulate the evolution of the climate during the decade 1979–88, subject to the observed monthly average temperature and sea ice and a common prescribed atmospheric CO2 concentration and solar constant. By 1995, 31 modeling groups, representing virtually the entire international atmospheric modeling community, had contributed the required standard output of the monthly means of selected statistics. These data have been analyzed by the participating modeling groups, by the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, and by the more than two dozen AMIP diagnostic subprojects that have been established to examine specific aspects of the models' performance. Here the analysis and validation of the AMIP results as a whole are summarized in order to document the overall performance of atmospheric general circulation–climate models as of the early 1990s. The infrastructure and plans for continuation of the AMIP project are also reported on.
Although there are apparent model outliers in each simulated variable examined, validation of the AMIP models' ensemble mean shows that the average large-scale seasonal distributions of pressure, temperature, and circulation are reasonably close to what are believed to be the best observational estimates available. The large-scale structure of the ensemble mean precipitation and ocean surface heat flux also resemble the observed estimates but show particularly large intermodel differences in low latitudes. The total cloudiness, on the other hand, is rather poorly simulated, especially in the Southern Hemisphere. The models' simulation of the seasonal cycle (as represented by the amplitude and phase of the first annual harmonic of sea level pressure) closely resembles the observed variation in almost all regions. The ensemble's simulation of the interannual variability of sea level pressure in the tropical Pacific is reasonably close to that observed (except for its underestimate of the amplitude of major El Niños), while the interannual variability is less well simulated in midlatitudes. When analyzed in terms of the variability of the evolution of their combined space–time patterns in comparison to observations, the AMIP models are seen to exhibit a wide range of accuracy, with no single model performing best in all respects considered.
Analysis of the subset of the original AMIP models for which revised versions have subsequently been used to revisit the experiment shows a substantial reduction of the models' systematic errors in simulating cloudiness but only a slight reduction of the mean seasonal errors of most other variables. In order to understand better the nature of these errors and to accelerate the rate of model improvement, an expanded and continuing project (AMIP II) is being undertaken in which analysis and intercomparison will address a wider range of variables and processes, using an improved diagnostic and experimental infrastructure.
