Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author or Editor: Jeyavinoth Jeyaratnam x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
James F. Booth, Veeshan Narinesingh, Katherine L. Towey, and Jeyavinoth Jeyaratnam

Abstract

Storm surge is a weather hazard that can generate dangerous flooding and is not fully understood in terms of timing and atmospheric forcing. Using observations along the northeastern United States, surge is sorted on the basis of duration and intensity to reveal distinct time-evolving behavior. Long-duration surge events slowly recede, whereas strong, short-duration events often involve negative surge in quick succession after the maximum. Using Lagrangian track information, the tropical and extratropical cyclones and atmospheric blocks that generate the surge events are identified. There is a linear correlation between surge duration and surge maximum, and the relationship is stronger for surge caused by extratropical cyclones as compared with those events caused by tropical cyclones. For the extremes based on duration, the shortest-duration strong surge events are caused by tropical cyclones, whereas the longest-duration events are most often caused by extratropical cyclones. At least one-half of long-duration surge events involve anomalously strong atmospheric blocking poleward of the cyclone, whereas strong, short-duration events are most often caused by cyclones in the absence of blocking. The dynamical influence of the blocks leads to slow-moving cyclones that take meandering paths. In contrast, for strong, short-duration events, cyclones travel faster and take a more meridional path. These unique dynamical scenarios provide better insight for interpreting the threat of surge in medium-range forecasts.

Open access
Catherine M. Naud, Jeyavinoth Jeyaratnam, James F. Booth, Ming Zhao, and Andrew Gettelman

ABSTRACT

Using a high-spatial- and high-temporal-resolution precipitation dataset, Integrated Multi-satellite Retrievals for GPM (IMERG), extratropical cyclone precipitation is evaluated in two reanalyses and two climate models. Based on cyclone-centered composites, all four models overestimate precipitation in the western subsiding and dry side of the cyclones, and underestimate the precipitation in the eastern ascending and moist side. By decomposing the composites into frequency of occurrence and intensity (mean precipitation rate when precipitating), the analysis reveals a tendency for all four models to overestimate frequency and underestimate intensity, with the former issue dominating in the western half and the latter in the eastern half of the cyclones. Differences in frequency are strongly dependent on cyclone environmental moisture, while the differences in intensity are strongly impacted by the strength of ascent within the cyclone. There are some uncertainties associated with the observations: IMERG might underreport frozen precipitation and possibly exaggerate rates in vigorously ascending regions. Nevertheless, the analysis suggests that all models produce extratropical cyclone precipitation too often and too lightly. These biases have consequences when evaluating the changes in precipitation characteristics with changes in cyclone properties: the models disagree on the magnitude of the change in precipitation intensity with a change in environmental moisture and in precipitation frequency with a change in cyclone strength. This complicates accurate predictions of precipitation changes in a changing climate.

Free access
Catherine M. Naud, James F. Booth, Jeyavinoth Jeyaratnam, Leo J. Donner, Charles J. Seman, Ming Zhao, Huan Guo, and Yi Ming

Abstract

The clouds in Southern Hemisphere extratropical cyclones generated by the GFDL climate model are analyzed against MODIS, CloudSat, and CALIPSO cloud and precipitation observations. Two model versions are used: one is a developmental version of “AM4,” a model GFDL that will utilize for CMIP6, and the other is the same model with a different parameterization of moist convection. Both model versions predict a realistic top-of-atmosphere cloud cover in the southern oceans, within 5% of the observations. However, an examination of cloud cover transects in extratropical cyclones reveals a tendency in the models to overestimate high-level clouds (by differing amounts) and underestimate cloud cover at low levels (again by differing amounts), especially in the post–cold frontal (PCF) region, when compared with observations. In focusing only on the models, it is seen that their differences in high and midlevel clouds are consistent with their differences in convective activity and relative humidity (RH), but the same is not true for the PCF region. In this region, RH is higher in the model with less cloud fraction. These seemingly contradictory cloud and RH differences can be explained by differences in the cloud-parameterization tuning parameters that ensure radiative balance. In the PCF region, the model cloud differences are smaller than either of the model biases with respect to observations, suggesting that other physics changes are needed to address the bias. The process-oriented analysis used to assess these model differences will soon be automated and shared.

Full access