• Akuetevi, C. Q. C., B. Barnier, J. Verron, J.-M. Molines, and A. Lecointre, 2016: Interactions between the Somali current eddies during the summer monsoon: Insights from a numerical study. Ocean Sci., 12, 185205, https://doi.org/10.5194/os-12-185-2016https://doi.org/10.5194/OS-12-185-2016.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ardhuin, F., and Coauthors, 2012: Numerical wave modeling in conditions with strong currents: Dissipation, refraction, and relative wind. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 42, 21012120, https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-11-0220.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Behrens, E., K. Våge, B. Harden, A. Biastoch, and C. W. Böning, 2017: Composition and variability of the Denmark Strait Overflow Water in a high-resolution numerical model hindcast simulation. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans, 122, 28302846, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JC012158.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bentamy, A., and Coauthors, 2017: Review and assessment of latent and sensible heat flux accuracy over the global oceans. Remote Sens. Environ., 201, 196218, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.08.016https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSE.2017.08.016.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bishop, S. P., R. J. Small, F. O. Bryan, and R. A. Tomas, 2017: Scale dependence of midlatitude air–sea interaction. J. Climate, 30, 82078221, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0159.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Boisvert, L. N., M. A. Webster, A. A. Petty, T. Markus, D. H. Bromwich, and R. I. Cullather, 2018: Intercomparison of precipitation estimates over the Arctic Ocean and its peripheral seas from reanalyses. J. Climate, 31, 84418462, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0125.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bond, N. A., and M. F. Cronin, 2008: Regional weather patterns during anomalous air–sea fluxes at the Kuroshio Extension Observatory (KEO). J. Climate, 21, 16801697, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI1797.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brodeau, L., B. Barnier, A.-M. Treguier, T. Penduff, and S. Gulev, 2010: An ERA40-based atmospheric forcing for global ocean circulation models. Ocean Modell., 31, 88104, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2009.10.005.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brodeau, L., B. Barnier, S. K. Gulev, and C. Woods, 2017: Climatologically significant effects of some approximations in the bulk parameterizations of turbulent air–sea fluxes. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 47, 528, https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-16-0169.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bromwich, D. H., K. M. Hines, and L.-S. Bai, 2009: Development and testing of Polar Weather Research and Forecasting model: 2. Arctic Ocean. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D08122, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010300.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bromwich, D. H., A. B. Wilson, L. Bai, G. W. Moore, and P. Bauer, 2016: A comparison of the regional Arctic System Reanalysis and the global ERA-Interim reanalysis for the Arctic. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 142, 644658, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2527https://doi.org/10.1002/QJ.2527.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bromwich, D. H., and Coauthors, 2018: The Arctic System Reanalysis, version 2. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 99, 805828, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0215.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bukovsky, M. S., and D. J. Karoly, 2009: Precipitation simulations using WRF as a nested regional climate model. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 48, 21522159, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAMC2186.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cavaleri, L., 2009: Wave modeling—Missing the peaks. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 39, 27572778, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JPO4067.1.

  • Chanut, J., B. Barnier, W. Large, L. Debreu, T. Penduff, J.-M. Molines, and P. Mathiot, 2008: Mesoscale eddies in the Labrador Sea and their contribution to convection and restratification. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 38, 16171643, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JPO3485.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chao, Y., Z. Li, J. D. Farrara, and P. Hung, 2009: Blending sea surface temperatures from multiple satellites and in situ observations for coastal oceans. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 26, 14151426, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHO592.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chassignet, E. P., and X. Xu, 2017: Impact of horizontal resolution (1/12° to 1/50°) on Gulf Stream separation, penetration, and variability. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 47, 19992021, https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-17-0031.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chelton, D. B., and F. J. Wentz, 2005: Global microwave satellite observations of sea surface temperature for numerical weather prediction and climate research. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 86, 10971116, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-86-8-1097.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chen, F., and J. Dudhia, 2001: Coupling an advanced land surface–hydrology model with the Penn State–NCAR MM5 modeling system. Part I: Model implementation and sensitivity. Mon. Wea. Rev., 129, 569585, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2001)129<0569:CAALSH>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Condron, A., and I. A. Renfrew, 2013: The impact of polar mesoscale storms on northeast Atlantic Ocean circulation. Nat. Geosci., 6, 3437, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1661https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO1661.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Condron, A., G. R. Bigg, and I. Renfrew, 2006: Polar mesoscale cyclones in the northeast Atlantic: Comparing climatologies from ERA-40 and satellite imagery. Mon. Wea. Rev., 134, 15181533, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3136.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Condron, A., G. R. Bigg, and I. A. Renfrew, 2008: Modeling the impact of polar mesocyclones on ocean circulation. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans, 113, C10005, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JC004599.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Copernicus Climate Change Service, 2017: ERA5 hourly data on single levels from 1979 to present. Copernicus Climate Change Service Climate Data Store, accessed 23 August 2019, https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.adbb2d47.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Danabasoglu, G., and Coauthors, 2014: North Atlantic simulations in Coordinated Ocean-Ice Reference Experiments phase II (CORE-II). Part I: Mean states. Ocean Modell., 73, 76107, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2013.10.005https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCEMOD.2013.10.005.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Danabasoglu, G., and Coauthors, 2016: North Atlantic simulations in Coordinated Ocean-Ice Reference Experiments phase II (CORE-II). Part II: Inter-annual to decadal variability. Ocean Modell., 97, 6590, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2015.11.007https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCEMOD.2015.11.007.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dee, D. P., and Coauthors, 2011: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: Configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 553597, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828https://doi.org/10.1002/QJ.828.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Deshayes, J., and Coauthors, 2013: Oceanic hindcast simulations at high resolution suggest that the Atlantic MOC is bistable. Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 30693073, https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50534https://doi.org/10.1002/GRL.50534.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Donlon, C., M. Martin, J. Stark, J. Roberts-Jones, E. Fiedler, and W. Wimmer, 2012: The Operational Sea Surface Temperature and Sea Ice Analysis (OSTIA) system. Remote Sens. Environ., 116, 140158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.10.017https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSE.2010.10.017.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dufour, A., O. Zolina, and S. K. Gulev, 2016: Atmospheric moisture transport to the Arctic: Assessment of reanalyses and analysis of transport components. J. Climate, 29, 50615081, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0559.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dukhovskoy, D. S., M. A. Bourassa, G. N. Petersen, and J. Steffen, 2017: Comparison of the ocean surface vector winds from atmospheric reanalysis and scatterometer-based wind products over the Nordic Seas and the northern North Atlantic and their application for ocean modeling. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans, 122, 19431973, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JC012453.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DuVivier, A. K., J. J. Cassano, A. Craig, J. Hamman, W. Maslowski, B. Nijssen, R. Osinski, and A. Roberts, 2016: Winter atmospheric buoyancy forcing and oceanic response during strong wind events around southeastern Greenland in the Regional Arctic System Model (RASM) for 1990–2010. J. Climate, 29, 975994, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0592.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fairall, C. W., E. F. Bradley, J. E. Hare, A. A. Grachev, and J. B. Edson, 2003: Bulk parameterization of air–sea fluxes: Updates and verification for the COARE algorithm. J. Climate, 16, 571591, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<0571:BPOASF>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fallmann, J., H. Lewis, J. C. Sanchez, and A. Lock, 2019: Impact of high-resolution ocean–atmosphere coupling on fog formation over the North Sea. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 145, 11801201, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3488https://doi.org/10.1002/QJ.3488.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fernandez, E., and J.-M. Lellouche, 2018: Product user manual for the Global Ocean Physical Reanalysis product: GLOBAL_REANALYSIS_ PHY_001_030. CMEMS Rep. CMEMS-GLO-PUM-001-030, 15 pp., http://cmems-resources.cls.fr/documents/PUM/CMEMS-GLO-PUM-001-030.pdf.

  • Fetterer, F., J. S. Stewart, and W. N. Meier, 2015: MASAM2: Daily 4 km Arctic sea ice concentration, version 1. National Snow and Ice Data Center, accessed 23 August 2019, https://doi.org/10.7265/N5ZS2TFT.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Føre, I., J. E. Kristjánsson, E. W. Kolstad, T. J. Bracegirdle, Ø. Saetra, and B. Røsting, 2012: A ‘hurricane-like’ polar low fuelled by sensible heat flux: High-resolution numerical simulations. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 138, 13081324, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1876https://doi.org/10.1002/QJ.1876.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fresnay, S., A. L. Ponte, S. Le Gentil, and J. Le Sommer, 2018: Reconstruction of the 3-D dynamics from surface variables in a high-resolution simulation of North Atlantic. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans, 123, 16121630, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013400.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gao, Y., J. Xu, and D. Chen, 2015: Evaluation of WRF mesoscale climate simulations over the Tibetan Plateau during 1979–2011. J. Climate, 28, 28232841, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00300.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Garric, G., and L. Parent, 2018: Product user manual for Global Ocean Reanalysis product: GLOBAL-REANALYSIS-PHY-001-025. CMEMS Rep. CMEMS-GLO-PUM-001-025, 19 pp., http://resources.marine.copernicus.eu/documents/PUM/CMEMS-GLO-PUM-001-025.pdf.

  • Gelaro, R., and Coauthors, 2017: The Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, version 2 (MERRA-2). J. Climate, 30, 54195454, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0758.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gershunov, A., T. Shulgina, F. M. Ralph, D. A. Lavers, and J. J. Rutz, 2017: Assessing the climate-scale variability of atmospheric rivers affecting western North America. Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 79007908, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL074175.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gimeno, L., R. Nieto, M. Vázquez, and D. Lavers, 2014: Atmospheric rivers: A mini-review. Front. Earth Sci., 2, 22966463, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2014.00002https://doi.org/10.3389/FEART.2014.00002.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gladyshev, S. V., V. S. Gladyshev, S. K. Gulev, and A. Sokov, 2018: Structure and variability of the meridional overturning circulation in the North Atlantic Subpolar Gyre, 2007–2017. Dokl. Earth Sci., 483, 15241527, https://doi.org/10.1134/S1028334X18120024.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Guan, B., and D. E. Waliser, 2015: Detection of atmospheric rivers: Evaluation and application of an algorithm for global studies. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 120, 12 51412 535, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024257.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gulev, S. K., and V. Grigorieva, 2006: Variability of the winter wind waves and swell in the North Atlantic and North Pacific as revealed by the voluntary observing ship data. J. Climate, 19, 56675685, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3936.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gulev, S. K., and K. Belyaev, 2012: Probability distribution characteristics for surface air–sea turbulent heat fluxes over the global ocean. J. Climate, 25, 184206, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI4211.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gulev, S. K., V. Grigorieva, A. Sterl, and D. Woolf, 2003: Assessment of the reliability of wave observations from voluntary observing ships: Insights from the validation of a global wind wave climatology based on voluntary observing ship data. J. Geophys. Res., 108, 3236, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JC001437.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Guo, C., M. Ilicak, I. Fer, E. Darelius, and M. Bentsen, 2014: Baroclinic instability of the Faroe Bank Channel Overflow. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 44, 26982717, https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-14-0080.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gutjahr, O., and G. Heinemann, 2018: A model-based comparison of extreme winds in the Arctic and around Greenland. Int. J. Climatol., 38, 52725292, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5729https://doi.org/10.1002/JOC.5729.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hand, R., N. Keenlyside, N.-E. Omrani, and M. Latif, 2014: Simulated response to inter-annual SST variations in the Gulf Stream region. Climate Dyn., 42, 715731, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1715-yhttps://doi.org/10.1007/S00382-013-1715-Y.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hanley, K. E., S. E. Belcher, and P. P. Sullivan, 2010: A global climatology of wind–wave interaction. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 40, 12631282, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JPO4377.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hewitt, H. T., and Coauthors, 2016: The impact of resolving the Rossby radius at mid-latitudes in the ocean: Results from a high-resolution version of the Met Office GC2 coupled model. Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 36553670, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3655-2016.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hong, S.-Y., and J.-O. J. Lim, 2006: The WRF single-moment 6-class microphysics scheme (WSM6). J. Korean Meteor. Soc., 42, 129151.

  • Hong, S.-Y., J. Dudhia, and S.-H. Chen, 2004: A revised approach to ice microphysical processes for the bulk parameterization of clouds and precipitation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 132, 103120, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2004)132<0103:ARATIM>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hong, S.-Y., Y. Noh, and J. Dudhia, 2006: A new vertical diffusion package with an explicit treatment of entrainment processes. Mon. Wea. Rev., 134, 23182341, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3199.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Huffman, G. J., R. F. Adler, M. M. Morrissey, D. T. Bolvin, S. Curtis, R. Joyce, B. McGavock, and J. Susskind, 2001: Global precipitation at one-degree daily resolution from multisatellite observations. J. Hydrometeor., 2, 3650, https://doi.org/10.1175/1525-7541(2001)002<0036:GPAODD>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Iacono, M. J., J. S. Delamere, E. J. Mlawer, M. W. Shepard, S. A. Clough, and W. D. Collins, 2008: Radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases: Calculations with the AER radiative transfer models. J. Geophys. Res., 113, D13103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009944.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jeuken, A. B. M., P. C. Siegmund, L. C. Heijboer, J. Feichter, and L. Bengtsson, 1996: On the potential of assimilating meteorological analyses in a global climate model for the purpose of model validation. J. Geophys. Res., 101, 16 93916 950, https://doi.org/10.1029/96JD01218.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Justino, F., A. B. Wilson, D. H. Bromwich, A. Avila, L.-S. Bai, and S.-H. Wang, 2019: Northern Hemisphere extratropical turbulent heat fluxes in ASRv2 and global reanalyses. J. Climate, 32, 21452166, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0535.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kain, J. S., 2004: The Kain–Fritsch convective parameterization: An update. J. Appl. Meteor., 43, 170181, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(2004)043<0170:TKCPAU>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kim, W. M., S. Yeager, P. Chang, and G. Danabasoglu, 2016: Atmospheric conditions associated with Labrador Sea deep convection: New insights from a case study of the 2006/07 and 2007/08 winters. J. Climate, 29, 52815297, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0527.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kobayashi, S., and Coauthors, 2015: The JRA-55 Reanalysis: General specifications and basic characteristics. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan Ser. II, 93, 548, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2015-001https://doi.org/10.2151/JMSJ.2015-001.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kolstad, E. W., 2011: A global climatology of favourable conditions for polar lows. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 17491761, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.888https://doi.org/10.1002/QJ.888.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kolstad, E. W., T. J. Bracegirdle, and M. Zahn, 2016: Re-examining the roles of surface heat flux and latent heat release in a “hurricane-like” polar low over the Barents Sea. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 121, 78537867, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024633.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kumar, A., L. Zhang, and W. Wang, 2013: Sea surface temperature–precipitation relationship in different reanalyses. Mon. Wea. Rev., 141, 11181123, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00214.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Large, W. G., and S. G. Yeager, 2004: Diurnal to decadal global forcing for ocean and sea-ice models: The data sets and flux climatologies. NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-460+STR, 105 pp., https://doi.org/10.5065/D6KK98Q6.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Large, W. G., and S. G. Yeager, 2009: The global climatology of an interannually varying air–sea flux data set. Climate Dyn., 33, 341364, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-008-0441-3https://doi.org/10.1007/S00382-008-0441-3.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lavers, D. A., and G. Villarini, 2015: The contribution of atmospheric rivers to precipitation in Europe and the United States. J. Hydrol., 522, 382390, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.12.010https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2014.12.010.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lavers, D. A., R. P. Allan, E. F. Wood, G. Villarini, D. J. Brayshaw, and A. J. Wade, 2011: Winter floods in Britain are connected to atmospheric rivers. Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L23803, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL049783.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lellouche, J.-M., and Coauthors, 2018: The Mercator Ocean global high-resolution monitoring and forecasting system. New Frontiers in Operational Oceanography, E. Chassignet, Eds., GODAE OceanView, 563–592.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Liu, Q., W. E. Rogers, A. V. Babanin, I. R. Young, L. Romero, S. Zieger, F. Qiao, and C. Guan, 2019: Observation-based source terms in the third-generation wave model WAVEWATCH III: Updates and verification. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 49, 489517, https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-18-0137.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ma, X., P. Chang, R. Saravanan, D. Wu, X. Lin, L. Wu, and X. Wan, 2015: Winter extreme flux events in the Kuroshio and Gulf Stream extension regions and relationship with modes of North Pacific and Atlantic variability. J. Climate, 28, 49504970, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00642.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ma, X., P. Chang, R. Saravanan, R. Montuoro, H. Nakamura, D. Wu, X. Lin, and L. Wu, 2017: Importance of resolving Kuroshio front and eddy influence in simulating the North Pacific storm track. J. Climate, 30, 18611880, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0154.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Madec, G., and Coauthors, 2016: NEMO ocean engine. Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace Note du Pôle de Modélisation 27, 396 pp., https://www.nemo-ocean.eu/wp-content/uploads/NEMO_book.pdf.

  • Markina, M., A. Gavrikov, S. Gulev, and B. Barnier, 2018: Developing configuration of WRF model for long-term high-resolution wind wave hindcast over the North Atlantic with WAVEWATCH III. Ocean Dyn., 68, 15931604, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10236-018-1215-zhttps://doi.org/10.1007/S10236-018-1215-Z.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Markina, M., J. H. P. Studholme, and S. K. Gulev, 2019: Ocean wind wave climate responses to wintertime North Atlantic atmospheric transient eddies and low-frequency flow. J. Climate, 32, 56195638, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0595.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Miguez-Macho, G., G. L. Stenchikov, and A. Robock, 2004: Spectral nudging to eliminate the effects of domain position and geometry in regional climate model simulations. J. Geophys. Res., 109, D13104, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD004495.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Minobe, S., A. Kuwano-Yoshida, N. Komori, S.-P. Xie, and R. J. Small, 2008: Influence of the Gulf Stream on the troposphere. Nature, 452, 206209, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06690https://doi.org/10.1038/NATURE06690.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Minobe, S., M. Miyashita, A. Kuwano-Yoshida, H. Tokinaga, and S.-P. Xie, 2010: Atmospheric response to the Gulf Stream: Seasonal variations. J. Climate, 23, 36993719, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3359.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, G. W. K., and I. A. Renfrew, 2005: Tip jets and barrier winds: A QuikSCAT climatology of high wind speed events around Greenland. J. Climate, 18, 37133725, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3455.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, G. W. K., I. A. Renfrew, B. E. Harden, and S. H. Mernild, 2015: The impact of resolution on the representation of southeast Greenland barrier winds and katabatic flows. Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 30113018, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063550.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, G. W. K., D. H. Bromwich, A. B. Wilson, I. Renfrew, and L. Bai, 2016: Arctic System Reanalysis improvements in topographically forced winds near Greenland. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 142, 20332045, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2798https://doi.org/10.1002/QJ.2798.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nakamura, H., A. Nishina, and S. Minobe, 2012: Response of storm tracks to bimodal Kuroshio path states south of Japan. J. Climate, 25, 77727779, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00326.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nakanishi, M., 2001: Improvement of the Mellor–Yamada turbulence closure model based on large-eddy simulation data. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 99, 349378, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018915827400.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nakanishi, M., and H. Niino, 2004: An improved Mellor–Yamada level-3 model with condensation physics: Its design and verification. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 112, 131, https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BOUN.0000020164.04146.98.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nakanishi, M., and H. Niino, 2006: An improved Mellor–Yamada level-3 model: Its numerical stability and application to a regional prediction of advection fog. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 119, 397407, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-005-9030-8https://doi.org/10.1007/S10546-005-9030-8.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Neu, U., and Coauthors, 2013: IMILAST: A community effort to intercompare extratropical cyclone detection and tracking algorithms. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94, 529547, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00154.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ogawa, F., H. Nakamura, K. Nishii, T. Miyasaka, and A. Kuwano-Yoshida, 2012: Dependence of the climatological axial latitudes of the tropospheric westerlies and storm tracks on the latitude of an extratropical oceanic front. Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L05804, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL049922.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Otte, T. L., C. G. Nolte, M. J. Otte, and J. H. Bowden, 2012: Does nudging squelch the extremes in regional climate modeling? J. Climate, 25, 70467066, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00048.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Papritz, L., S. Pfahl, H. Sodemann, and H. Wernli, 2015: A climatology of cold air outbreaks and their impact on air–sea heat fluxes in the high-latitude South Pacific. J. Climate, 28, 342364, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00482.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Parfitt, R., A. Czaja, S. Minobe, and A. Kuwano-Yoshida, 2016: The atmospheric frontal response to SST perturbations in the Gulf Stream region. Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 22992306, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067723.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Parfitt, R., A. Czaja, and Y.-O. Kwon, 2017: The impact of SST resolution change in the ERA-Interim reanalysis on wintertime Gulf Stream frontal air–sea interaction. Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 32463254, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073028.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Powers, J. G., and Coauthors, 2017: The Weather Research and Forecasting Model: Overview, system efforts, and future directions. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 98, 17171737, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00308.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ralph, F. M., and Coauthors, 2017: Atmospheric rivers emerge as a global science and applications focus. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 98, 19691973, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0262.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rattan, S., P. G. Myers, A.-M. Treguier, S. Theetten, A. Biastoch, and C. Böning, 2010: Towards an understanding of Labrador Sea salinity drift in eddy-permitting simulations. Ocean Modell., 35, 7788, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2010.06.007https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCEMOD.2010.06.007.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ricchi, A., M. M. Miglietta, P. P. Falco, A. Benetazzo, D. Bonaldo, A. Bergamasco, M. Sclavo, and S. Carniel, 2016: On the use of a coupled ocean–atmosphere–wave model during an extreme cold air outbreak over the Adriatic Sea. Atmos. Res., 172–173, 4865, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2015.12.023https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ATMOSRES.2015.12.023.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ricciardulli, L., and F. J. Wentz, 2015: A scatterometer geophysical model function for climate-quality winds: QuikSCAT Ku-2011. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 32, 18291846, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0008.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Roberts-Jones, J., E. K. Fiedler, and M. J. Martin, 2012: Daily, global, high-resolution SST and sea ice reanalysis for 1985–2007 using the OSTIA system. J. Climate, 25, 62156232, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00648.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rudeva, I., and S. K. Gulev, 2007: Climatology of cyclone size characteristics and their changes during the cyclone life cycle. Mon. Wea. Rev., 135, 25682587, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3420.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rudnick, D. L., G. Gopalakrishnan, and B. D. Cornuelle, 2015: Cyclonic eddies in the Gulf of Mexico: Observations by underwater gliders and simulations by numerical model. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 45, 313326, https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-14-0138.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sarafanov, A., and Coauthors, 2012: Mean full-depth summer circulation and transports at the northern periphery of the Atlantic Ocean in the 2000s. J. Geophys. Res., 117, C01014, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007572.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Semedo, A., K. Sušelj, A. Rutgersson, and A. Sterl, 2011: A global view on the wind sea and swell climate and variability from ERA-40. J. Climate, 24, 14611479, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3718.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sérazin, G., T. Penduff, S. Grégorio, B. Barnier, J.-M. Molines, and L. Terray, 2015: Intrinsic variability of sea level from global ocean simulations: Spatiotemporal scales. J. Climate, 28, 42794292, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00554.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sérazin, G., T. Penduff, B. Barnier, J.-M. Molines, B. K. Arbic, M. Müller, and L. Terray, 2018: Inverse cascades of kinetic energy as a source of intrinsic variability: A global OGCM study. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 48, 13851408, https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-17-0136.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sharmila, S., and K. J. E. Walsh, 2018: Recent poleward shift of tropical cyclone formation linked to Hadley cell expansion. Nat. Climate Change, 8, 730736, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0227-5https://doi.org/10.1038/S41558-018-0227-5.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shields, C. A., and Coauthors, 2018: Atmospheric River Tracking Method Intercomparison Project (ARTMIP): Project goals and experimental design. Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 24552474, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2455-2018.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Skamarock, W. C., and Coauthors, 2008: A description of the Advanced Research WRF version 3. NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-475+STR, 113 pp., http://doi.org/10.5065/D68S4MVH.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Skofronick-Jackson, G., and Coauthors, 2017: The Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission for science and society. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 98, 16791695, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00306.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Small, R. J., S. P. Xie, L. O’Neill, H. Seo, Q. Song, P. Cornillon, M. Spall, and S. Minobe, 2008: Air–sea interaction over ocean fronts and eddies. Dyn. Atmos. Oceans, 45, 274319, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dynatmoce.2008.01.001.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Small, R. J., R. A. Tomas, and F. O. Bryan, 2014: Storm track response to ocean fronts in a global high-resolution climate model. Climate Dyn., 43, 805828, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1980-9https://doi.org/10.1007/S00382-013-1980-9.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Small, R. J., F. O. Bryan, S. P. Bishop, and R. A. Tomas, 2019: Air–sea turbulent heat fluxes in climate models and observational analyses: What drives their variability? J. Climate, 32, 23972421, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0576.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Smirnova, J., and P. Golubkin, 2017: Comparing polar lows in atmospheric reanalyses: Arctic system reanalysis versus ERA-interim. Mon. Wea. Rev., 145, 23752383, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-16-0333.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stoll, P. J., R. G. Graversen, G. Noer, and K. Hodges, 2018: An objective global climatology of polar lows based on reanalysis data. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 144, 20992117, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3309https://doi.org/10.1002/QJ.3309.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Studholme, J., and S. Gulev, 2018: Concurrent changes to Hadley circulation and the meridional distribution of tropical cyclones. J. Climate, 31, 43674389, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0852.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tang, J., S. Wang, X. Niu, P. Hui, P. Zong, and X. Wang, 2017: Impact of spectral nudging on regional climate simulation over CORDEX East Asia using WRF. Climate Dyn., 48, 23392357, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3208-2https://doi.org/10.1007/S00382-016-3208-2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tegen, I., P. Hollrig, M. Chin, I. Fung, D. Jacob, and J. Penner, 1997: Contribution of different aerosol species to the global aerosol extinction optical thickness: Estimates from model results. J. Geophys. Res., 102, 23 89523 915, https://doi.org/10.1029/97JD01864.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tilinina, N., S. K. Gulev, I. Rudeva, and K. P. Koltermann, 2013: Comparing cyclone life cycle characteristics and their interannual variability in different reanalyses. J. Climate, 26, 64196438, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00777.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tilinina, N., S. K. Gulev, and D. H. Bromwich, 2014: New view of Arctic cyclone activity from the Arctic system reanalysis. Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 17661772, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058924.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tilinina, N., A. Gavrikov, and S. K. Gulev, 2018: Association of the North Atlantic surface turbulent heat fluxes with midlatitude cyclones. Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 36913715, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0291.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tolman, H., 2003: Treatment of unresolved islands and ice in wind wave models. Ocean Modell., 5, 219231, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1463-5003(02)00040-9.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tréguier, A. M., S. Theetten, E. P. Chassignet, T. Penduff, R. Smith, L. Talley, J. O. Beismann, and C. Böning, 2005: The North Atlantic subpolar gyre in four high-resolution models. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 35, 757774, https://doi.org/10.1175/JPO2720.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tsujino, H., and Coauthors, 2018: JRA-55 based surface dataset for driving ocean–sea-ice models (JRA55-do). Ocean Modell., 130, 79139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2018.07.002https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCEMOD.2018.07.002.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Viale, M., and M. N. Nuñez, 2011: Climatology of winter orographic precipitation over the subtropical central Andes and associated synoptic and regional characteristics. J. Hydrometeor., 12, 481507, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JHM1284.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vihma, T., and Coauthors, 2014: Advances in understanding and parameterization of small-scale physical processes in the marine Arctic climate system: A review. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 94039450, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-9403-2014https://doi.org/10.5194/ACP-14-9403-2014.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wagner, J. S., A. Gohm, A. Dörnbrack, and A. Schäfler, 2011: The mesoscale structure of a polar low: Airborne lidar measurements and simulations. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 15161531, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.857https://doi.org/10.1002/QJ.857.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Waite, M. L., and C. Snyder, 2009: The mesoscale kinetic energy spectrum of a baroclinic life cycle. J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 883901, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JAS2829.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Waliser, D., and B. Guan, 2017: Extreme winds and precipitation during landfall of atmospheric rivers. Nat. Geosci., 10, 179183, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2894https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO2894.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Woollings, T., J. M. Gregory, J. G. Pinto, M. Reyers, and D. J. Brayshaw, 2012: Response of the North Atlantic storm track to climate change shaped by ocean–atmosphere coupling. Nat. Geosci., 5, 313317, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1438https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO1438.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wu, L., J. E. Martin, and G. W. Petty, 2011: Piecewise potential vorticity diagnosis of the development of a polar low over the Sea of Japan. Tellus, 63A, 198211, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2011.00511.xhttps://doi.org/10.1111/J.1600-0870.2011.00511.X.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yu, L., and R. A. Weller, 2007: Objectively analyzed air–sea heat fluxes for the global ice-free oceans (1981–2005). Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88, 527539, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-88-4-527.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zahn, M., and H. von Storch, 2008: A long-term climatology of North Atlantic polar lows. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L22702, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL035769.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zappa, G., L. Shaffrey, and K. Hodges, 2014: Can polar lows be objectively identified and tracked in the ECMWF operational analysis and the ERA-Interim reanalysis? Mon. Wea. Rev., 142, 25962608, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00064.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zeng, X., and A. Beljaars, 2005: A prognostic scheme of sea surface skin temperature for modeling and data assimilation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L14605, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023030.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhu, Y., and R. E. Newell, 1998: A proposed algorithm for moisture fluxes from atmospheric rivers. Mon. Wea. Rev., 126, 725735, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1998)126<0725:APAFMF>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zieger, S., A. V. Babanin, W. E. Rogers, and I. R. Young, 2015: Observation-based source terms in the third-generation wave model WAVEWATCH. Ocean Modell., 96, 225, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2015.07.014https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCEMOD.2015.07.014.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zolina, O., and S. K. Gulev, 2002: Improving the accuracy of mapping cyclone numbers and frequencies. Mon. Wea. Rev., 130, 748759, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2002)130<0748:ITAOMC>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zolina, O., and S. K. Gulev, 2003: Synoptic variability of ocean–atmosphere turbulent fluxes associated with atmospheric cyclones. J. Climate, 16, 27172734, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<2717:SVOOTF>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zuo, H., M. A. Balmaseda, S. Tietsche, K. Mogensen, and M. Mayer, 2019: The ECMWF operational ensemble reanalysis–analysis system for ocean and sea ice: A description of the system and assessment. Ocean Sci., 2019, 779808, https://doi.org/10.5194/OS-15-779-2019.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • View in gallery
    Fig. 1.

    NAAD computational domain and map-scale factor for the HiRes simulation.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 2.

    (a) Annual mean (1979–2018) 2-m air temperature in NAAD HiRes and differences in the annual mean 2-m air temperatures (b) between NAAD HiRes and NAAD LoRes, (c) between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim, and (d) between NAAD HiRes and ASRv2. Also shown is (e) annual mean (1979–2018) 2-m relative humidity in NAAD HiRes and differences in the annual mean 2-m relative humidity (f) between NAAD HiRes and NAAD LoRes, (g) between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim, and (h) between NAAD HiRes and ASRv2. For LoRes and ERA-Interim, the differences are for the period of 1979–2018; for ASRv2, the differences are for the period of 2000–16.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 3.

    (a) January mean (1979–2018) scalar 10-m wind speed (colors) in NAAD HiRes and wind vectors in NAAD HiRes (red) and ERA-Interim (black), along with differences in 10-m wind speed (b) between NAAD HiRes and LoRes, (c) between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim, and (d) between NAAD HiRes and ASRv2. Also shown is (e) the January 99th percentile of 10-m wind speed over subpolar North Atlantic in NAAD HiRes and differences in 99th percentile of 10-m wind speed (f) between NAAD HiRes and LoRes, (g) between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim, and (h) between NAAD HiRes and ASRv2. For LoRes and ERA-Interim, the differences are shown for the period of 1979–2018; for ASRv2, differences are shown for the period of 2000–16.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 4.

    Histograms of the differences between NAAD HiRes (red), NAAD LoRes (orange), and ERA-Interim (blue) winds with respect to QuikSCAT winds for 2005.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 5.

    (a) January (1979–2018) sensible plus latent turbulent heat fluxes in NAAD HiRes and differences in sensible plus latent turbulent heat flux (b) between NAAD HiRes and LoRes and (c) between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim. Also shown is the (d) January (1979–2018) 99th percentile of sensible plus latent turbulent heat flux in NAAD HiRes and differences in 99th percentile of sensible plus latent turbulent heat flux (e) between NAAD HiRes and LoRes and (f) between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 6.

    (a) Winter (DJF; 1979–2018) number of cyclones in NAAD HiRes and the differences in the DJF number of cyclones (b) between NAAD LoRes and ERA-Interim, (c) between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim, and (d) between NAAD HiRes and ERA5. Units are cyclone tracks per season (DJF) per circle with a radius of 2° latitude [equivalent to approximately 155 000 km2; see Tilinina et al. (2013, 2014) for the mapping metrics].

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 7.

    Time series of the seasonal (DJF) (a) total number of cyclones, as well as numbers of (b) moderately deep, (c) deep, and (d) shallow cyclones in NAAD HiRes, NAAD LoRes, and different reanalyses. Thin lines show winter (DJF) annual values, and thick lines show 5-yr running means.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 8.

    Time series of the (a) annual mean domain-averaged precipitation (mm day−1) for 1979–2017 and (b) monthly mean domain-averaged precipitation (mm day−1) for 2014–17 in NAAD HiRes (red), NAAD LoRes (orange), ERA-Interim (blue), ERA5 (cyan), GPCP (green), and GPM (magenta).

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 9.

    (a) Annual (1979–2018) mean precipitation (mm day−1) in NAAD HiRes and differences in the annual mean precipitation (b) between NAAD HiRes and NAAD LoRes and (c) between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim. Also shown are (d) annual (1979–2018) mean atmospheric precipitable water content (kg m−2) in NAAD HiRes and differences in the annual mean precipitable water content (e) between NAAD HiRes and NAAD LoRes and (f) between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim (f).

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 10.

    July 2015 monthly precipitation rates (mm day−1) in (a) NAAD HiRes, (b) LoRes, (c) ERA-Interim, (d) GPM, (e) GPCP, and (f) ERA5.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 11.

    Representation of AR on 5 Dec 2015: (a) vertically integrated water vapor transport in NAAD HiRes and daily accumulated precipitation diagnosed by (b) GPM, (c) NAAD HiRes, (d) LoRes, and (e) ERA-Interim, along with (f) the difference in precipitation between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim over the area of AR landfall. The zoomed-in area in (f) is shown by the black-outlined box in (c). Line AB in (a) shows the cross section displayed in Fig. 12, below.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 12.

    (a) Moisture transport across the AB section (see Fig. 11a) on 5 Dec 2015 in NAAD HiRes (colors) and the component of wind speed orthogonal to the section (contours) as well as (b) the difference in the moisture transport across the AB section on 5 Dec 2015 between NAAD HiRes and NAAD LoRes.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 13.

    Wavenumber kinetic energy spectra derived from wind speed data and averaged over the layer between 3- and 5-km height over the whole NAAD domain for (a) NAAD HiRes and (b) NAAD LoRes. In (a) and (b), spectra for the total (black), geostrophic (green), and ageostrophic (yellow) kinetic energy are shown. Dotted lines show power laws of k−3 and k−5/3, as labeled. (c) Wavenumber kinetic energy spectra derived from surface wind speed diagnosed by NAAD HiRes (green) and ASRv2 (blue) for the area of overlap of the NAAD and ASRv2 domains. The area of overlap of NAAD and ASRv2 is outlined in red in the inlay map, and the gray line in the inlay shows the southern boundary of the ASRv2 domain in the Atlantic region. (d) Wavenumber kinetic energy spectra derived from NAAD HiRes (black) and NAAD LoRes (gray) for the surface (solid lines) and 1500 m (dashed lines) for the tropical domain outlined in red in the inlay map.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 14.

    Diagnostics of the polar low on 2 Mar 2008. Shown is the surface 10-m wind speed (colors) and mean sea level pressure (MSLP; contours) as revealed by (a) NAAD HiRes, (b) ERA-Interim, (c) ERA5, and (d) ASRv2. Also shown is sensible plus latent heat flux (colors) and MSLP (contours) diagnosed by (e) NAAD HiRes, (f) ERA-Interim, (g) ERA5, and (h) ASRv2.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 15.

    Diagnostics of Hurricane Gaston in the moment of maximum development on 0000 UTC 31 Aug 2016, showing (a) the precipitation pattern diagnosed by GPM and the MSLP (contours), 10-m wind speed vectors (arrows), and precipitation (colors) as diagnosed by (b) NAAD HiRes, (c) NAAD LoRes, (d) ERA-Interim, and (e) ERA5.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 16.

    (top) Domain-averaged simulated ocean SST in NAAD-OHR (orange) and NAAD-OLR (magenta), along with ESA SST (green). Time series of ESA SST are shown only for the period of data availability (1993–2010). (bottom) Domain-averaged ocean heat content for the 0–700-m layer (upper curves) and the 700–1500-m layer (lower curves) in NAAD-OHR (orange) and NAAD-OLR (magenta). The inlay map shows the domain of the NNATL12 ocean general circulation model. Thick lines in the bottom panels show monthly means, and dashed lines show annual means.

  • View in gallery
    Fig. 17.

    (a) Mean SWH in NAAD-WHR and (b) difference in the mean SWH between NAAD-WHR and NAAD-WLR over the period of 1979–2018, as well as (c) mean 95th percentile of SWH in NAAD-WHR and (d) difference in 95th percentile of SWH between NAAD-WHR and NAAD-WLR.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1465 458 64
PDF Downloads 874 396 57

RAS-NAAD: 40-yr High-Resolution North Atlantic Atmospheric Hindcast for Multipurpose Applications (New Dataset for the Regional Mesoscale Studies in the Atmosphere and the Ocean)

Alexander Gavrikov P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Search for other papers by Alexander Gavrikov in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Sergey K. Gulev P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

Search for other papers by Sergey K. Gulev in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Margarita Markina P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

Search for other papers by Margarita Markina in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Natalia Tilinina P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Search for other papers by Natalia Tilinina in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Polina Verezemskaya P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Search for other papers by Polina Verezemskaya in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Bernard Barnier P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Institut des Géosciences de l’Environnement, Grenoble, France

Search for other papers by Bernard Barnier in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Ambroise Dufour P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Institut des Géosciences de l’Environnement, Grenoble, France

Search for other papers by Ambroise Dufour in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Olga Zolina P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Institut des Géosciences de l’Environnement, Grenoble, France

Search for other papers by Olga Zolina in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Yulia Zyulyaeva P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Search for other papers by Yulia Zyulyaeva in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Mikhail Krinitskiy P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Search for other papers by Mikhail Krinitskiy in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Ivan Okhlopkov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

Search for other papers by Ivan Okhlopkov in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Alexey Sokov P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Search for other papers by Alexey Sokov in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open access

Abstract

We present in this paper the results of the Russian Academy of Sciences North Atlantic Atmospheric Downscaling (RAS-NAAD) project, which provides a 40-yr 3D hindcast of the North Atlantic (10°–80°N) atmosphere at 14-km spatial resolution with 50 levels in the vertical direction (up to 50 hPa), performed with a regional setting of the WRF-ARW 3.8.1 model for the period 1979–2018 and forced by ERA-Interim as a lateral boundary condition. The dataset provides a variety of surface and free-atmosphere parameters at sigma model levels and meets many demands of meteorologists, climate scientists, and oceanographers working in both research and operational domains. Three-dimensional model output at 3-hourly time resolution is freely available to the users. Our evaluation demonstrates a realistic representation of most characteristics in both datasets and also identifies biases mostly in the ice-covered regions. High-resolution and nonhydrostatic model settings in NAAD resolve mesoscale dynamics first of all in the subpolar latitudes. NAAD also provides a new view of the North Atlantic extratropical cyclone activity with a much larger number of cyclones as compared with most reanalyses. It also effectively captures highly localized mechanisms of atmospheric moisture transports. Applications of NAAD to ocean circulation and wave modeling are demonstrated.

Denotes content that is immediately available upon publication as open access.

© 2020 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Sergey K. Gulev, gul@sail.msk.ru

Abstract

We present in this paper the results of the Russian Academy of Sciences North Atlantic Atmospheric Downscaling (RAS-NAAD) project, which provides a 40-yr 3D hindcast of the North Atlantic (10°–80°N) atmosphere at 14-km spatial resolution with 50 levels in the vertical direction (up to 50 hPa), performed with a regional setting of the WRF-ARW 3.8.1 model for the period 1979–2018 and forced by ERA-Interim as a lateral boundary condition. The dataset provides a variety of surface and free-atmosphere parameters at sigma model levels and meets many demands of meteorologists, climate scientists, and oceanographers working in both research and operational domains. Three-dimensional model output at 3-hourly time resolution is freely available to the users. Our evaluation demonstrates a realistic representation of most characteristics in both datasets and also identifies biases mostly in the ice-covered regions. High-resolution and nonhydrostatic model settings in NAAD resolve mesoscale dynamics first of all in the subpolar latitudes. NAAD also provides a new view of the North Atlantic extratropical cyclone activity with a much larger number of cyclones as compared with most reanalyses. It also effectively captures highly localized mechanisms of atmospheric moisture transports. Applications of NAAD to ocean circulation and wave modeling are demonstrated.

Denotes content that is immediately available upon publication as open access.

© 2020 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Sergey K. Gulev, gul@sail.msk.ru

1. Introduction

Subsynoptic and mesoscale atmospheric dynamics over the North Atlantic Ocean are of great interest for understanding the mechanisms of highly localized precipitation, heat and moisture transports, and low-level baroclinicity in the atmosphere. Changes in the intensity and location of the North Atlantic storm tracks are critically important for the quantification of the impact of highly variable atmospheric processes onto air–sea fluxes and associated ocean signals and for understanding the responses of cyclone activity to those ocean signals (Minobe et al. 2008, 2010; Woollings et al. 2012; Tilinina et al. 2018). Many works hint at the critical role of mesoscale dynamics in air–sea interaction in the North Atlantic, first of all in forming cold-air outbreaks (Zolina and Gulev 2003; Bond and Cronin 2008; Papritz et al. 2015; Kim et al. 2016) over the Gulf Stream, the Labrador Sea, and the Greenland–Iceland–Norwegian (GIN) Seas and in generating polar lows characterized by small scales and extreme surface fluxes in the subpolar regions (Kolstad 2011; Condron and Renfrew 2013; Stoll et al. 2018, among others). Extremely high turbulent heat and momentum surface fluxes associated with these phenomena are highly localized in space and in time and require high temporal and spatial resolution for their adequate representation in models (Gulev and Belyaev 2012; Vihma et al. 2014).

Many lower-troposphere responses to the ocean signals are also associated with mesoscale processes, including the low-level baroclinicity over the western boundary currents (Nakamura et al. 2012; Ogawa et al. 2012; Small et al. 2014; Ma et al. 2017; DuVivier et al. 2016; Parfitt et al. 2016, 2017) and anomalous convective precipitation in warm seasons (Minobe et al. 2008; Hand et al. 2014). High-resolution regional model experiments demonstrated the responses of the lower atmosphere to the ocean signals at length scales of less than 30–50 km, suggesting ocean–atmosphere coupling at mesoscales and submesoscales (Small et al. 2008, 2014, 2019; Ma et al. 2017; Parfitt et al. 2016; Bishop et al. 2017). Subsynoptic and mesoscale processes are also crucial for better understanding the mechanisms of atmospheric moisture transports, first of all in the atmospheric rivers (ARs; Lavers et al. 2011; Lavers and Villarini 2015; Gimeno et al. 2014) providing strong ocean-to-continent moisture intrusions associated with abundant precipitation. All of these phenomena cannot always be adequately captured by global reanalyses, such as ERA-Interim, JRA-55, MERRA-2, and ERA5 (Dee et al. 2011; Kobayashi et al. 2015; Gelaro et al. 2017; Copernicus Climate Change Service 2017; for definitions of acronyms, see https://www.ametsoc.org/PubsAcronymList), partly because of their relatively coarse resolution but also because of the use of hydrostatic model configurations. Remarkably, the Arctic System Reanalysis (ASR; Bromwich et al. 2016, 2018) performed with the polar Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model (Bromwich et al. 2009) demonstrated a considerable improvement of the representation of many phenomena in the Arctic atmosphere (Tilinina et al. 2014; Moore et al. 2015, 2016; Smirnova and Golubkin 2017; Boisvert et al. 2018; Justino et al. 2019, among others).

Ongoing ocean modeling activities also require high-resolution forcing functions accounting for mesoscale atmospheric features. Existing datasets used for forcing model experiments such as Drakkar forcing set (DFS4/5), Coordinated Ocean-Ice Reference Experiments (CORE), and JRA-55-do are based on global reanalyses (Large and Yeager 2004, 2009; Brodeau et al. 2010; Danabasoglu et al. 2014, 2016; Tsujino et al. 2018) with a spatial resolution of approximately 50–100 km. At the same time, modern eddy-resolving ocean general circulation models use resolutions finer than 1/10°, equivalent to a few kilometers at subpolar latitudes (Deshayes et al. 2013; Sérazin et al. 2015; Guo et al. 2014; Rudnick et al. 2015; Behrens et al. 2017), and up to 1/50°–1/60° in some regional simulations (Chassignet and Xu 2017; Fresnay et al. 2018; Fallmann et al. 2019). These experiments are focused on essentially small-scale ocean features. The role of small-scale atmospheric processes, however, remains unclear when using relatively coarse-resolution forcing. Similarly, modern spectral wave models account for highly nonlinear wave generation and development processes strongly dependent on the submesoscale wind structure (Ardhuin et al. 2012; Hanley et al. 2010; Semedo et al. 2011; Zieger et al. 2015; Markina et al. 2019). At the same time, in most cases these advanced configurations are forced with relatively coarse-resolution reanalysis winds.

In summary, there is a high demand from different communities for long-term high-resolution atmospheric hindcasts performed with high-resolution model configurations for the North Atlantic where mesoscale and submesoscale processes are of high relevance. Facing this challenge, the P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IORAS) in cooperation with the Institut des Géosciences de l’Environnement (IGE) developed a high-resolution (14 km) atmospheric downscaling experiment for the North Atlantic Ocean [North Atlantic Atmospheric Downscaling (NAAD)]. In NAAD, the nonhydrostatic WRF Model was forced at the lateral boundaries by the ERA-Interim reanalysis over the 40-yr period (1979–2018). In the following, we describe the NAAD model configuration and production strategy in section 2 followed by a short description of NAAD products and data availability (section 3). Then we turn to the NAAD evaluation (section 4) and pilot applications (section 5). In the conclusive section 6 we discuss the NAAD added value and perspectives of further developments of the product.

2. NAAD model configuration and production strategy

In NAAD we used the nonhydrostatic WRF Model, version 3.8.1 (Skamarock et al. 2008; Powers et al. 2017). The domain covers the North Atlantic from 10° to 80°N and from 90°W to 5°E (Fig. 1), with the center at 45°N, 45°W. The initial and lateral boundary conditions [including sea surface temperature (SST)] were provided by the ERA-Interim reanalysis (Dee et al. 2011) at 0.7° × 0.7° spatial resolution and 60 levels in the vertical direction. The spatial resolution in the basic NAAD high-resolution experiment (HiRes) was 14 km (551 × 551 points) and 50 terrain-following, dry hydrostatic pressure levels, starting from around 10–12 m above the ocean surface to 50 hPa with ~15 levels in the boundary layer (http://www.naad.ocean.ru). Besides the HiRes experiment, we also conducted a moderately low resolution experiment (LoRes) with the hydrostatic setting of the WRF Model at 77-km resolution (110 × 110 points) with 50 vertical levels (as in HiRes). The LoRes experiment (with resolution comparable to ERA-Interim) will be used to quantify the added value of the HiRes experiment, which cannot be directly compared with ERA-Interim (constrained by data assimilation and using a very different model configuration). All experiments were run for the 40-yr period from January 1979 to December 2018. Details of the model settings for the HiRes and LoRes experiments are presented in Table 1.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

NAAD computational domain and map-scale factor for the HiRes simulation.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 59, 5; 10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0190.1

Table 1.

NAAD HiRes and LoRes experimental design (see text for details).

Table 1.

Most parameterizations were used in both HiRes and LoRes NAAD experiments. We used the Kain–Fritsch (KF) convective parameterization scheme (Kain 2004). The RRTMG longwave and shortwave radiation schemes (Iacono et al. 2008) were used for terrestrial and solar radiation processes, which additionally utilize effective cloud water, ice and snow radii from the single-moment 6-class (WSM6) scheme for microphysics (Hong and Lim 2006) in HiRes, and subgrid convective cloud information from KF for a more accurate estimation of atmospheric optical depth. The surface layer was parameterized by the MM5 scheme of (Skamarock et al. 2008) based upon similarity theory, accounting for a viscous sublayer and incorporating the COARE 3.0 algorithm (Fairall et al. 2003) for calculating thermal and moisture roughness lengths (or exchange coefficients for heat and moisture) over the ocean surface. For the planetary boundary layer (PBL) we used the Yonsei University (YSU) nonlocal scheme (Hong et al. 2006) and the Noah land surface model (Chen and Dudhia 2001). An important issue is the number of vertical levels captured by the PBL. In NAAD (see the specification of vertical levels at http://www.naad.ocean.ru), 15 vertical levels are below 850 hPa. Computation of the PBL height (not shown) reveals the highest PBL exceeding 1000 m over the regions with active convection and the lowest PBL of less than 200 m in the polar regions. This implies that the number of vertical levels in PBL range from as few as 5–6 to as many as 15–16 over the NAAD domain. In this respect, for example, version 2 of ASR (ASRv2; Bromwich et al. 2018) with approximately 10–12 levels in the PBL (implied by 25 levels below 850 hPa) is more effective in polar latitudes; however, ASRv2 is based on the local Mellor–Yamada–Janjić PBL scheme, which may not necessarily be effective over the whole North Atlantic region.

Since the Noah scheme updates deep soil temperature, the skin sea surface temperature is calculated using the Zeng and Beljaars (2005) formulation. The PBL scheme is responsible for vertical subgrid-scale fluxes due to eddy transports in the whole atmospheric column, and not only in the boundary layer. Horizontal eddy viscosity coefficients are obtained in the WRF dynamic core independently using the Smagorinsky first-order closure approach. Parameterizations of microphysics were nevertheless different in HiRes and LoRes. Thus, the WSM6 scheme for microphysics (Hong and Lim 2006) was used in the NAAD-HiRes and WSM 5-class (WSM5; Hong et al. 2004). Additionally, employing entrainment information from KF was applied in the NAAD-LoRes case. For the long-term runs with WRF in both HiRes and LoRes experiments, the RRTMG scheme uses climatological ozone and aerosol data. The ozone data were adapted from the Community Atmospheric Model radiation scheme with latitudinal (2.82° step), height, and temporal (monthly) variation. The aerosol data were based on the Tegen et al. (1997) dataset with relatively coarse spatial (5° in longitude and 4° in latitude) and temporal (monthly) resolution.

The WRF settings used for NAAD HiRes, with some modifications, was applied in a number of applications. In the Polar WRF used in ASRv2 (Bromwich et al. 2018) the major difference was in the use of the Mellor–Yamada–Nakanishi–Niino (Nakanishi 2001; Nakanishi and Niino 2004, 2006) 2.5-level PBL parameterization. However, the nonlocal YSU scheme used in NAAD is effective to resolve strong convective processes in the midlatitudes and tropical regions. This parameterization was used in a number of RCM simulations (Bukovsky and Karoly 2009; Otte et al. 2012; Gao et al. 2015; Tang et al. 2017).

At the ocean surface, we used ERA-Interim SST and sea ice, which was updated every 6 h during the simulation. ERA-Interim SST is combined from different sources (Dee et al. 2011). Kumar et al. (2013) demonstrated that in different reanalyses, the intraseasonal SST–precipitation relationship is dependent on the SST used. In this respect we understand that the relatively coarse (with respect to HiRes) resolution of ERA-Interim SST may have an effect on the atmospheric surface layer and PBL. Currently, several high-resolution SST datasets, while limited in time coverage, are available (Chelton and Wentz 2005; Chao et al. 2009; Ricchi et al. 2016). Nevertheless, for the 40-yr-long NAAD experiments we used ERA-Interim SST, which is considered to be homogeneous and adequate for multidecadal scales.

To reduce unrealistic atmospheric dynamics in the regional domain in both LoRes and HiRes experiments, we applied throughout the 40-yr period the procedure of spectral interior nudging (Jeuken et al. 1996; Miguez-Macho et al. 2004). The spectral nudging technique optimizes the adjustment of the large-scale dynamics inside the domain to that implied by the boundary conditions. The nudging procedure was applied to the zonal and meridional wind components, air temperature, and the perturbation of the geopotential height. We did not nudge the moisture fields because their variability is not always represented adequately in the coarse-resolution ERA-Interim (Miguez-Macho et al. 2004; Otte et al. 2012). Configuration of nudging was set according to the sensitivity study of Markina et al. (2018), which implied the optimal wavelength cutoff being 1100 km, applied only above the PBL. For determining the optimal nudging strength, we performed sensitivity experiments with the nudging strength coefficients increasing from 3 × 10−5 to 3 × 10−3 s−1. These experiments implied an optimal value of the nudging strength coefficient of 3 × 10−4 s−1 (equivalent to a damping scale of about 1 h). This value is also consistent with other studies (Miguez-Macho et al. 2004; Otte et al. 2012; Tang et al. 2017, among others). Note also that the ASRv2 (Bromwich et al. 2018) used spectral nudging with the strength 3 × 10−3 s−1 (i.e., an order of magnitude stronger relative to NAAD) for all levels in the outer domain and above 100 hPa in the inner domain. However, a direct comparison is unlikely to be possible here, as the ARSv2 assimilates a lot of observational data in the surface layer using the same technique (Newtonian relaxation, also called “observational nudging”; Jeuken et al. 1996).

The dynamical solver of WRF uses a Cartesian grid. The difference between the geographical and the model horizontal distance (map-scale factor) should not deviate significantly from unity in order to match the CFL criterion. The NAAD grid is based on a cylindrical equidistant projection (lat-lon in the namelist; http://www.naad.ocean.ru) with the rotated pole in order to locate the equator at the middle of the domain (pole_lat = 45; pole_lon = 180; stand_lon = −45). For this projection, the maximum map-scale factor amounts to 1.2 in the northernmost and southernmost regions of the domain (Fig. 1). This allowed for keeping a constant third-order Runge–Kutta time step of 30 s in HiRes and 240 s in LoRes. In NAAD we used the USGS topography data with 10 min spatial resolution.

3. NAAD products and data availability

NAAD products (see http://www.naad.ocean.ru for the parameter identification and namelist) include surface and upper-troposphere variables provided at the native NAAD grid for HiRes and LoRes products with resolutions of 14 and 77 km, respectively, for the period of 1979–2018. Since the NAAD core model (WRF-ARW) uses a staggered Arakawa C grid, all 3D fields are preinterpolated from the C grid on the mass points (unstaggered grid). No interpolation was applied for surface variables and fluxes, provided at the mass points. The entire archive of the NAAD data amounts to 150 terrabytes (TB) with individual annual files ranging from approximately 140 MB in LoRes to 3.3 GB in HiRes for surface variables on to 165 GB for HiRes 3D fields. The whole NAAD data output is organized as annual NetCDF files by variable and is available online (http://www.naad.ocean.ru) for download using FTP and Network Data Access Protocol (OPeNDAP) accesses.

4. NAAD evaluation

a. Surface

Surface-state variables and fluxes are particularly significant as they are used for forcing ocean models and for the diagnostics of extreme events. Figures 2a and 2b show that surface air temperature diagnosed by NAAD HiRes is colder than in LoRes. The differences between LoRes and HiRes are smaller than 0.2°C over most of the domain and increase to 0.4°C in the western midlatitude North Atlantic. Larger surface air temperatures in HiRes compared to LoRes, amounting to 1°C, are observed over the ice-covered regions and occur primarily in the winter months. This regional bias can be explained by using a coarse-resolution sea ice mask from ERA-Interim in both HiRes and LoRes NAAD simulations. Compared to ERA-Interim (Fig. 2c), HiRes shows 0.2° to 0.4°C lower surface air temperatures over most of the North Atlantic and considerably colder surface air temperatures in the ice-covered regions in the subpolar North Atlantic. A similar pattern of differences in surface air temperature is revealed for ASRv2 (Fig. 2d) for the area of overlap of the two domains. Surface relative humidity (Figs. 2e,f) over open ocean midlatitudes and subtropics is slightly smaller in HiRes compared to LoRes with the differences exceeding 1% identified in the western tropics. At the same time, somewhat more humid surface conditions in HiRes compared to LoRes are identified in the subpolar western North Atlantic and in the offshore region of the subtropical eastern Atlantic. Here the differences amount to 0.6%–0.8%. Compared to ERA-Interim and ASRv2 (Figs. 2g,h), NAAD HiRes shows a relative humidity higher by 2%–3% over the North Atlantic with the strongest differences (>6%) in the eastern North Atlantic subtropics.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

(a) Annual mean (1979–2018) 2-m air temperature in NAAD HiRes and differences in the annual mean 2-m air temperatures (b) between NAAD HiRes and NAAD LoRes, (c) between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim, and (d) between NAAD HiRes and ASRv2. Also shown is (e) annual mean (1979–2018) 2-m relative humidity in NAAD HiRes and differences in the annual mean 2-m relative humidity (f) between NAAD HiRes and NAAD LoRes, (g) between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim, and (h) between NAAD HiRes and ASRv2. For LoRes and ERA-Interim, the differences are for the period of 1979–2018; for ASRv2, the differences are for the period of 2000–16.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 59, 5; 10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0190.1

Figure 3 shows the evaluation of climatological winter winds in NAAD HiRes and LoRes. NAAD HiRes and LoRes surface winds are consistent south of 45°N with the differences within ±0.15 m s−1. At the same time, in the Irminger Sea NAAD HiRes shows stronger mean winds by 0.2–0.6 m s−1, thus likely reflecting a better representation of the mesoscale features such as tip jets and katabatic winds in this area. The comparison with ERA-Interim (Fig. 3c) shows stronger trade winds in the NAAD HiRes experiment, somewhat lower wind speeds in the western midlatitude North Atlantic, and also stronger winds in the subpolar North Atlantic along the eastern Greenland coast. North of 40°N, differences between HiRes and ASRv2 (Fig. 3d) are consistent with those for ERA-Interim. Dukhovskoy et al. (2017) noted differences between high-resolution satellite wind products and reanalyses attributing them to the subsynoptic and mesoscale processes. The impact of high-resolution and nonhydrostatic setting onto the wind field is especially evident for extreme winds (Figs. 3e–h). We note much stronger katabatic winds and tip jets along the Greenland coast, with the differences in surface winds between HiRes and LoRes experiments being locally over 4 m s−1 (about 20% of mean values of 99th percentile of wind speed). Relative to ERA-Interim, the HiRes experiment shows extreme winds stronger by more than 7 m s−1. Important is that HiRes also shows much better localization of katabatic winds near the coast in HiRes compared to LoRes and ERA-Interim. Figure 3d shows the localization of maximum extreme winds much closer to the Greenland coast in agreement with the case studies (Moore and Renfrew 2005; Moore et al. 2015). Extreme wind speed differences between NAAD HiRes and ASRv2 in the Irminger Sea (Fig. 3h) amount to 1.5–2 m s−1. Comparison of NAAD winds with QuikSCAT winds (Ricciardulli and Wentz 2015) (Fig. 4) indicates that both NAAD HiRes and LoRes have considerably smaller errors with respect to QuikSCAT when compared with ERA-Interim, which clearly demonstrates a systematic negative bias of 0.5–2 m s−1.

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

(a) January mean (1979–2018) scalar 10-m wind speed (colors) in NAAD HiRes and wind vectors in NAAD HiRes (red) and ERA-Interim (black), along with differences in 10-m wind speed (b) between NAAD HiRes and LoRes, (c) between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim, and (d) between NAAD HiRes and ASRv2. Also shown is (e) the January 99th percentile of 10-m wind speed over subpolar North Atlantic in NAAD HiRes and differences in 99th percentile of 10-m wind speed (f) between NAAD HiRes and LoRes, (g) between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim, and (h) between NAAD HiRes and ASRv2. For LoRes and ERA-Interim, the differences are shown for the period of 1979–2018; for ASRv2, differences are shown for the period of 2000–16.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 59, 5; 10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0190.1

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Histograms of the differences between NAAD HiRes (red), NAAD LoRes (orange), and ERA-Interim (blue) winds with respect to QuikSCAT winds for 2005.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 59, 5; 10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0190.1

Surface turbulent fluxes (sensible plus latent, Fig. 5) in NAAD HiRes show the structure to be consistent with reanalyses and blended climatologies such as OA-FLUX (e.g., Yu and Weller 2007) with the locally strong fluxes over the Gulf Stream (primarily due to latent heat) and in the Labrador Sea (mostly due to sensible heat). NAAD HiRes turbulent fluxes are generally larger than those of NAAD LoRes by 0–10 W m−2 in the open ocean regions and by ~30 W m−2 over the Gulf Stream and in the Labrador and Irminger Seas. In the subpolar latitudes, the stronger HiRes fluxes are explained by the differences in wind speed (Fig. 3) with a significant contribution from surface temperature and humidity gradients, especially for sensible heat flux (no figure shown). In the midlatitudes and subtropics, the differences in turbulent heat fluxes between HiRes and LoRes are associated with surface temperature and humidity vertical gradients, as wind speed differences here are close to zero (Fig. 3). Differences with ERA-Interim (Fig. 5c) are 30%–50% larger than those with NAAD LoRes, while the direct comparison here is difficult because of the differences between the ERA-Interim surface flux algorithm and the COARE 3.0 flux algorithm (Fairall et al. 2003) used in NAAD (Brodeau et al. 2017). Of interest is also the evaluation of extreme surface turbulent fluxes, which might be strongly dependent on mesoscale processes (Ma et al. 2015) and demonstrate differences between different products not consistent with those for mean values (Gulev and Belyaev 2012; Bentamy et al. 2017). Figures 5d–f presents extreme fluxes quantified by the 99th percentile of the modified Fisher–Tippett distribution (Gulev and Belyaev 2012). Relative to LoRes, HiRes shows stronger extreme fluxes over the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current where differences may locally exceed 30 W m−2 (up to 5%–10% of the mean values). In the Irminger Sea the differences amount to 200 W m−2, being more than 20%–25% of the mean values of extreme turbulent fluxes. Extreme fluxes diagnosed by HiRes are also considerably stronger than in ERA-Interim (Fig. 5f), with maximum differences locally exceeding 300 W m−2.

Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.

(a) January (1979–2018) sensible plus latent turbulent heat fluxes in NAAD HiRes and differences in sensible plus latent turbulent heat flux (b) between NAAD HiRes and LoRes and (c) between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim. Also shown is the (d) January (1979–2018) 99th percentile of sensible plus latent turbulent heat flux in NAAD HiRes and differences in 99th percentile of sensible plus latent turbulent heat flux (e) between NAAD HiRes and LoRes and (f) between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 59, 5; 10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0190.1

b. Storm tracks and cyclone dynamics

NAAD opens a new avenue in the analysis of cyclone dynamics and storm tracks. Cyclone tracks were diagnosed using the IORAS algorithm (Zolina and Gulev 2002; Tilinina et al. 2013), tested within the IMILAST project (Neu et al. 2013). Tracking was performed on the NAAD HiRes grid. For tracking cyclones in the limited area over the North Atlantic we applied an approach that accounts for the so-called entry–exit uncertainties (Tilinina et al. 2014). Postprocessing was further applied to cutoff cyclones with migration distances smaller than 1000 km and lifetimes shorter than 24 h (Tilinina et al. 2013).

NAAD HiRes (Fig. 6a) captures well the main North Atlantic storm tracks that are consistent with cyclone climatologies based on the global reanalyses (e.g., Neu et al. 2013; Tilinina et al. 2013). NAAD HiRes shows 30%–60% larger local cyclone numbers compared to LoRes. Also, NAAD LoRes shows slightly larger number of cyclones compared to ERA-Interim while the differences are within 3%–5%. Over the North Atlantic storm track, the number of cyclones in NAAD HiRes is close to that in ERA5 (Fig. 6d) with slightly larger cyclone counts over the storm formation region in the Northwest Atlantic and slightly smaller counts in the central North Atlantic and the subpolar regions.

Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.

(a) Winter (DJF; 1979–2018) number of cyclones in NAAD HiRes and the differences in the DJF number of cyclones (b) between NAAD LoRes and ERA-Interim, (c) between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim, and (d) between NAAD HiRes and ERA5. Units are cyclone tracks per season (DJF) per circle with a radius of 2° latitude [equivalent to approximately 155 000 km2; see Tilinina et al. (2013, 2014) for the mapping metrics].

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 59, 5; 10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0190.1

Figure 7 shows the winter [December–February (DJF)] time series of the domain integrated number of cyclones with different intensities (quantified by central pressure). NAAD HiRes allows for identification of ~2 times more cyclones compared to LoRes, which indicates a high consistency with the global reanalyses, except for ERA5, which reveals practically the same number of cyclones as NAAD HiRes (Fig. 7a). Importantly, these differences between HiRes and all other products (including LoRes) are formed mostly by moderately deep and shallow cyclones (Figs. 7b,d). At the same time, the number of deep cyclones in HiRes is more consistent with LoRes and reanalyses showing 10%–15% higher counts. Overall, the winter cyclone activity in NAAD is very close to that in ERA5 and considerably more intense compared to the other reanalyses. Summer results (not shown) are qualitatively similar with even higher differences especially for shallow cyclones dominating during the warm season.

Fig. 7.
Fig. 7.

Time series of the seasonal (DJF) (a) total number of cyclones, as well as numbers of (b) moderately deep, (c) deep, and (d) shallow cyclones in NAAD HiRes, NAAD LoRes, and different reanalyses. Thin lines show winter (DJF) annual values, and thick lines show 5-yr running means.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 59, 5; 10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0190.1

Figure 6 demonstrates relatively strong differences between cyclone counts in NAAD and in all reanalyses over the North American continent. This is likely associated with the fact that the finer-resolution NAAD HiRes is capable of identifying cyclone generation events at an earlier stage than the global reanalyses. Our analysis of cyclogenesis events (not shown) demonstrates considerably larger counts of cyclone generation events over the North American storm track in NAAD when compared with even ERA5, while the total number of tracks is close in both products (Fig. 7). Also, we note that the cyclone effective radius, characterizing cyclone size (Rudeva and Gulev 2007) is smaller in NAAD HiRes by about 50–100 km as compared with NAAD LoRes and is also smaller by 100–150 km relative to ERA-Interim (no figure shown). NAAD HiRes also demonstrates capabilities in capturing characteristics of extreme cyclones. Thus, our analysis of extremely deep cyclones shows that the 100 deepest cyclones in NAAD HiRes have a central pressure about 4 hPa lower than those in LoRes and ERA-Interim. Similar conclusions were drawn from WRF-based high-resolution ASR in comparison with global reanalyses (Tilinina et al. 2014).

c. Hydrological cycle

Evaluation of the North Atlantic hydrological cycle in the NAAD is of special interest. Figure 8a shows time series of annual mean precipitation over the NAAD domain as computed from NAAD HiRes and LoRes experiments, as well as from ERA-Interim, the Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP1DD) (Huffman et al. 2001), and, starting from 2013, the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission (Skofronick-Jackson et al. 2017). NAAD HiRes shows slightly higher domain integrated total precipitation values compared to NAAD LoRes before the early 2000s and slightly smaller precipitation during the last 15 years. Both HiRes and LoRes domain integrated values are 4%–7% less than ERA-Interim and 5%–10% less than GPCP. Starting from 2013, NAAD HiRes is in a very good agreement with GPM, demonstrating very small (relative to the other products) differences for all seasons (Fig. 8b). The consistency with GPM is, however, somewhat better in autumn–winter than in spring–summer, likely because of a stronger contribution of the convective precipitation (requiring even higher resolution than that in HiRes) during the warm season.

Fig. 8.
Fig. 8.

Time series of the (a) annual mean domain-averaged precipitation (mm day−1) for 1979–2017 and (b) monthly mean domain-averaged precipitation (mm day−1) for 2014–17 in NAAD HiRes (red), NAAD LoRes (orange), ERA-Interim (blue), ERA5 (cyan), GPCP (green), and GPM (magenta).

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 59, 5; 10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0190.1

Figures 9a–c shows annual mean total precipitation in NAAD HiRes and the differences with LoRes and ERA-Interim. NAAD HiRes when compared with LoRes shows stronger precipitation in the western Atlantic tropics and over the Gulf Stream by up to 1 mm day−1 and lower, by 0.3–0.5 mm day−1, precipitation in the North Atlantic subpolar gyre. Relative to ERA-Interim (Fig. 9c), NAAD HiRes shows stronger precipitation over the Gulf Stream (up to 2 mm day−1) and weaker precipitation over the subpolar latitudes. The precipitable water content (PWC) (Figs. 9d,e) is lower in NAAD HiRes than in LoRes by 4%–6%, with the strongest absolute differences in the western tropics. ERA-Interim, however, shows a slightly higher PWC than NAAD HiRes over most of the domain except for the western tropics and subtropics (Fig. 9e). Differences in precipitation and PWC suggest stronger tropical water recycling in NAAD HiRes and somewhat weaker recycling in mid- and subpolar latitudes relative to LoRes and ERA-Interim.

Fig. 9.
Fig. 9.

(a) Annual (1979–2018) mean precipitation (mm day−1) in NAAD HiRes and differences in the annual mean precipitation (b) between NAAD HiRes and NAAD LoRes and (c) between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim. Also shown are (d) annual (1979–2018) mean atmospheric precipitable water content (kg m−2) in NAAD HiRes and differences in the annual mean precipitable water content (e) between NAAD HiRes and NAAD LoRes and (f) between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim (f).

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 59, 5; 10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0190.1

Representation of summer precipitation over the western North Atlantic is important for quantifying the lower-atmosphere responses to the ocean frontal signals in the Gulf Stream (Minobe et al. 2008, 2010; Parfitt et al. 2016). Precipitation responses in summer are typically associated with convective processes and mostly located over the westernmost part of the Gulf Stream. In winter, precipitation responses are associated with the atmospheric frontal activity and enhanced precipitation over the central and eastern Gulf Stream proper (Minobe et al. 2010). Figure 10 demonstrates precipitation for July 2015 as revealed by NAAD HiRes and LoRes as well as by ERA-Interim, ERA5, GPM, and GPCP. NAAD HiRes with its capability to capture convective processes shows the best agreement with GPCP in the structure of precipitation pattern and in magnitude. NAAD LoRes and ERA-Interim tend to underestimate precipitation rates by 2–4 and 3–6 mm day−1, respectively. ERA5 is most consistent with HiRes in spatial structure but shows smaller precipitation rates of 2–3 mm day−1. Comparison with ASRv2 (no figure shown) is somewhat difficult as the ASR domain boundary cuts a considerable part of the region analyzed. However, for the overlapping part of the domain the precipitation pattern in ASRv2 is comparable in structure to that of NAAD HiRes.

Fig. 10.
Fig. 10.

July 2015 monthly precipitation rates (mm day−1) in (a) NAAD HiRes, (b) LoRes, (c) ERA-Interim, (d) GPM, (e) GPCP, and (f) ERA5.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 59, 5; 10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0190.1

Capabilities of the high-resolution NAAD in representing moisture transports can be analyzed through the diagnostics of ARs (Lavers and Villarini 2015; Ralph et al. 2017; Shields et al. 2018), representing narrow synoptic-scale jets transporting an abundant amount of water vapor from the ocean to the continents. ARs may be responsible for more than 90% of poleward moisture transport (Zhu and Newell 1998) and also result in extreme precipitation events over continental coastal areas (Viale and Nuñez 2011; Lavers and Villarini 2015; Gershunov et al. 2017; Waliser and Guan 2017).

For the detection of ARs, we used the 85th percentile of the integrated water vapor transport (IVT) along with a fixed lower IVT limit of 100 kg m−1 s−1 (Guan and Waliser 2015). The 85th percentile of IVT was computed from the 20-day sliding windows in the NAAD-HiRes and LoRes outputs, and moisture transports were computed according to Dufour et al. (2016). Figure 11 shows the case study for 5 December 2015, with an AR associated with the deep cyclone east of Iceland and clearly seen in IVT fields. Associated daily accumulated precipitation in the NAAD HiRes closely matches that diagnosed by GPM, while, for example, ERA-Interim shows the shift in the location of the AR with respect to GPM. NAAD HiRes precipitation in the AR landfall areas over the U.K. and Norway coasts is over 66 mm day−1. This is greater than the values diagnosed by NAAD LoRes and ERA-Interim by up to 30 mm day−1 (Fig. 11f). We also note an accurate location of the coastal precipitation maxima in the landfall areas in NAAD HiRes (Fig. 11f). The maximum of water vapor transport in the AR (Fig. 12a) at 2.5-km height is associated with locally strong winds amounting to more than 40 m s−1. Figure 12b shows that the AR core in HiRes is characterized by 10%–15% stronger transports relative to LoRes, reflecting the fact that ARs in the HiRes experiment are narrower. In climatological context, this reduces the time during which western Europe coasts are exposed to ARs; however, this makes the impact of individual ARs stronger and highly localized. Our estimate for 2015, performed using a method similar to Guan and Waliser (2015), shows that AR landfalls in HiRes happen during 10%–15% of the time, which is less than in LoRes and MERRA (15%–20%).

Fig. 11.
Fig. 11.

Representation of AR on 5 Dec 2015: (a) vertically integrated water vapor transport in NAAD HiRes and daily accumulated precipitation diagnosed by (b) GPM, (c) NAAD HiRes, (d) LoRes, and (e) ERA-Interim, along with (f) the difference in precipitation between NAAD HiRes and ERA-Interim over the area of AR landfall. The zoomed-in area in (f) is shown by the black-outlined box in (c). Line AB in (a) shows the cross section displayed in Fig. 12, below.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 59, 5; 10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0190.1

Fig. 12.
Fig. 12.

(a) Moisture transport across the AB section (see Fig. 11a) on 5 Dec 2015 in NAAD HiRes (colors) and the component of wind speed orthogonal to the section (contours) as well as (b) the difference in the moisture transport across the AB section on 5 Dec 2015 between NAAD HiRes and NAAD LoRes.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 59, 5; 10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0190.1

d. Mesoscale features

To demonstrate the representation of mesoscale features in the NAAD, we use kinetic energy (KE) wavenumber spectra (SKE) derived from the wind speed data and averaged over the layer between 3- and 5-km height over the whole domain (Figs. 13a,b). These spectra characterize the atmospheric turbulence at different scales by the power law SKE(k) ~ kγ, where k is the wavenumber and γ is changing from approximately −3 to approximately −5/3 between the ranges of space scales larger and smaller than 500 km (Waite and Snyder 2009; Condron and Renfrew 2013; Dukhovskoy et al. 2017). Figure 13 demonstrates marked differences in the wavenumber spectra for HiRes and LoRes experiments. For the total and geostrophic KE, the HiRes spectrum is better matching k3 than LoRes is. It is important, however, that the spectral decay rate for both geostrophic and ageostrophic components at smaller scales (<500 km) is considerably smaller in HiRes than in LoRes. This reflects stronger pressure gradients (and, thus, stronger winds) in synoptic and mesoscale transients in the HiRes experiment. Dukhovskoy et al. (2017) noted a similar tendency in ASR relative to global coarser-resolution reanalyses in the subpolar North Atlantic.

Fig. 13.
Fig. 13.

Wavenumber kinetic energy spectra derived from wind speed data and averaged over the layer between 3- and 5-km height over the whole NAAD domain for (a) NAAD HiRes and (b) NAAD LoRes. In (a) and (b), spectra for the total (black), geostrophic (green), and ageostrophic (yellow) kinetic energy are shown. Dotted lines show power laws of k−3 and k−5/3, as labeled. (c) Wavenumber kinetic energy spectra derived from surface wind speed diagnosed by NAAD HiRes (green) and ASRv2 (blue) for the area of overlap of the NAAD and ASRv2 domains. The area of overlap of NAAD and ASRv2 is outlined in red in the inlay map, and the gray line in the inlay shows the southern boundary of the ASRv2 domain in the Atlantic region. (d) Wavenumber kinetic energy spectra derived from NAAD HiRes (black) and NAAD LoRes (gray) for the surface (solid lines) and 1500 m (dashed lines) for the tropical domain outlined in red in the inlay map.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 59, 5; 10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0190.1

Figure 13c shows the wavenumber kinetic energy spectra near the surface using data from NAAD HiRes and ASRv2 over the overlapping part of the two domains. As in the case of the free troposphere (Figs. 13a,b), the NAAD HiRes spectrum built from the surface data closely matches k−5/3 decay rate in the range of scales less than 700 km. The ASRv2 spectrum demonstrates a very similar behavior in terms of change in γ from ~−3 to ~−5/3 and the decay rate in the range from 700 to at least 100–150 km.

In this respect it is of interest to consider the representation of polar lows in NAAD. Polar lows represent highly localized maritime atmospheric phenomena associated with extreme winds and advection of very dry cold air, playing an important role in high-latitude atmospheric dynamics and air–sea interaction processes (Zahn and von Storch 2008; Condron et al. 2008; Condron and Renfrew 2013, among others). They are hardly detectable in global reanalyses primarily due to their small size (Zappa et al. 2014; Stoll et al. 2018). Many publications, however, report the capability of the WRF Model even without data assimilation to effectively simulate polar lows (Wagner et al. 2011; Wu et al. 2011; Føre et al. 2012; Kolstad et al. 2016). Kolstad (2011) developed a unique database of 63 polar lows (1999–2009) in the subpolar and subarctic North Atlantic and Arctic using AVHRR and QuikSCAT winds. Of the 21 events identified by Kolstad (2011) in the NAAD domain, NAAD HiRes was able to successfully detect 20 polar lows.

Figure 14 shows a case study for the polar low that developed on 2 March 2008 in the Irminger Sea. NAAD HiRes detects well the location of the pressure minimum identifying a 978-hPa central pressure, which is deeper than that in ERA-Interim (986 hPa) and even in ERA5 (984 hPa). Also, NAAD HiRes demonstrates the well-detectable comma-type structure not present in ERA-Interim and ERA5 and less evident in ASRv2. Note that NAAD LoRes results (no figure shown) are very close to ERA-Interim for this case. The associated maximum surface wind speed in the polar low amounts in HiRes to 32 m s−1, with 26–27 m s−1 in ERA-Interim and ERA5, and nearly 30 m s−1 in ASRv2 (Fig. 14). Note that Gutjahr and Heinemann (2018) clearly demonstrated that an accurate representation of the tip jets and associated extreme winds around Greenland requires resolutions of at least 15 km. Remarkably, it is also the case that surface turbulent fluxes (sensible plus latent) are considerably stronger in HiRes (up to 900 W m−2) than in ERA-Interim (600 W m−2) and are comparable to both ERA5 and ASRv2. We note that the direct comparison of surface fluxes between these products should be taken with caution because of the use of somewhat different flux algorithms. However, the analysis of surface flux PDFs and the surface flux relative extremeness (Gulev and Belyaev 2012; Tilinina et al. 2018) show that the strong flux event during 2 March 2008 in NAAD HiRes contributed more to the total monthly flux as compared with ERA5 and ASRv2.

Fig. 14.
Fig. 14.

Diagnostics of the polar low on 2 Mar 2008. Shown is the surface 10-m wind speed (colors) and mean sea level pressure (MSLP; contours) as revealed by (a) NAAD HiRes, (b) ERA-Interim, (c) ERA5, and (d) ASRv2. Also shown is sensible plus latent heat flux (colors) and MSLP (contours) diagnosed by (e) NAAD HiRes, (f) ERA-Interim, (g) ERA5, and (h) ASRv2.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 59, 5; 10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0190.1

The capability of the NAAD to capture the mesoscale dynamics in the tropics is evaluated in Fig. 13d showing wavenumber spectra of the kinetic energy near the surface (10 m) and at 1500 m in HiRes and LoRes simulations. Remarkably, the spectra near the surface and at 1500 m are qualitatively close to each other for both simulations and are also close to the spectra for the free troposphere (Figs. 13a,b) and to the surface spectra in the subpolar region (Fig. 13c). At the same time, tropical spectra for HiRes demonstrate a k−5/3 decay rate for the wave lengths from 200 to 1000 km, while LoRes spectra follow k−3 and a slightly stronger decay rate in this range. This implies more energetic mesoscale features of the same size in the tropics in HiRes than in LoRes.

NAAD is also capable of identifying tropical cyclones generated and propagating north of the southern margin of the domain. Figure 15 shows the diagnostics of Hurricane Gaston, which developed over the North Atlantic between 22 August and 2 September 2016. At the moment of maximum development, NAAD HiRes diagnoses the lowest central pressure (6 hPa deeper when compared with ERA5 and more than 15 hPa deeper than NAAD LoRes and ERA-Interim) as well as winds stronger by 5–8 m s−1 than in ERA5. Associated precipitation in NAAD HiRes is considerably stronger than in LoRes and ERA-Interim and consistent in magnitude with ERA5. However, the precipitation pattern in HiRes more accurately captures the shape implied by GPM than ERA5.

Fig. 15.
Fig. 15.

Diagnostics of Hurricane Gaston in the moment of maximum development on 0000 UTC 31 Aug 2016, showing (a) the precipitation pattern diagnosed by GPM and the MSLP (contours), 10-m wind speed vectors (arrows), and precipitation (colors) as diagnosed by (b) NAAD HiRes, (c) NAAD LoRes, (d) ERA-Interim, and (e) ERA5.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 59, 5; 10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0190.1

5. Pilot ocean applications

a. Effects in modeled ocean circulation

To demonstrate the NAAD capabilities for driving long-term experiments with regional configurations of ocean general circulation models, we developed surface forcing functions for the ocean based upon NAAD HiRes and NAAD LoRes and used them to drive a northern North Atlantic regional configuration of the NEMO (version 3.6) ocean and sea ice general circulation model (Madec et al. 2016). This configuration (referred to as NNATL12) covers the subpolar gyre of the North Atlantic (Verezemskaya et al. 2020, manuscript submitted to J. Geophys. Res.) at a resolution of approximately 4.5 km. The model configuration setup including configuration geometry (1/12° grid, 75 vertical z levels with fine separation (1 m) near the surface, coastlines, and bathymetry), numerical schemes and physical process parameterizations are those commonly used for the global 1/12° eddy-resolving global ocean circulation model ORCA12 for the operational forecasts (Lellouche et al. 2018) as well as for climate-oriented long-term simulations (e.g., Sérazin et al. 2018; Hewitt et al. 2016) and process studies (e.g., Akuetevi et al. 2016). At the open northern and southern boundaries as well as at the western boundary of Hudson Bay, the model is driven by monthly mean temperature, salinity, velocity, and sea ice from the Global Ocean Reanalysis Simulation (GLORYS12), version 4 (v4) (Garric and Parent 2018). The model was tested in a set of sensitivity experiments and validated against the high-resolution the 1/12° GLORYS12 reanalysis of the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service (Fernandez and Lellouche 2018), satellite observations, and repeated full-depth hydrographic sections at 60°N (Sarafanov et al. 2012; Gladyshev et al. 2018; Verezemskaya et al. 2020, manuscript submitted to J. Geophys. Res.).

Comparative model experiments were performed with NAAD HiRes and NAAD LoRes atmospheric forcings; the experiments are referred to as NAAD-OHR and NAAD-OLR, respectively. Significant differences in characteristics of turbulent and radiative heat fluxes as well as momentum fluxes between the two forcings at the ocean surface result in large differences in the simulated ocean mean state. Thus, the domain-averaged simulated SST is approximately 0.6°C lower in NAAD-OHR, with summer differences amounting to more than 1.5°C (Fig. 16), in close agreement with European Space Agency (ESA) SST (http://www.esa-sst-cci.org). Note that trends in SST are highly consistent in both NAAD-OHR and NAAD-OLR. The strongest SST negative differences of 1°–1.5°C and lower sea surface salinity (0.15–0.2 psu) in NAAD-OHR relative to NAAD-OLR are observed in the Labrador and Irminger Seas. Consistent with SST, NAAD-OHR shows a lower ocean heat content for both the upper (0–700 m) and intermediate ocean (700–1500 m), suggesting a more intense ventilation of the ocean by convective processes in NAAD-OHR (Fig. 16). Since almost all ocean models in noncoupled experiments have a tendency toward a warmer and saltier ocean (Tréguier et al. 2005; Rattan et al. 2010), the colder upper-ocean temperatures in NAAD-OHR should be considered as an improvement. The OHR forcing also appears to drive significant changes in the boundary currents around Greenland and in the different branches of the central North Atlantic Current, which were found to be more intense and more variable in NAAD-OHR than in NAAD-OLR, as revealed by the partition of eddy kinetic energy (not shown). NAAD-OHR also shows a somewhat deeper mixed layer depth (MLD) relative to NAAD-OLR (not shown) in regions known for being strongly ventilated by winter convection (the southwest sector of the Labrador Sea and the central Irminger Sea). A lesser ventilation is noticed in the areas where ocean eddies are known to counterbalance the effects of strong surface fluxes onto MLD (e.g., Chanut et al. 2008).

Fig. 16.
Fig. 16.

(top) Domain-averaged simulated ocean SST in NAAD-OHR (orange) and NAAD-OLR (magenta), along with ESA SST (green). Time series of ESA SST are shown only for the period of data availability (1993–2010). (bottom) Domain-averaged ocean heat content for the 0–700-m layer (upper curves) and the 700–1500-m layer (lower curves) in NAAD-OHR (orange) and NAAD-OLR (magenta). The inlay map shows the domain of the NNATL12 ocean general circulation model. Thick lines in the bottom panels show monthly means, and dashed lines show annual means.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 59, 5; 10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0190.1

b. Effects in ocean wind-wave modeling

NAAD can be also effectively used for forcing spectral wave models whose solutions are critically dependent on the quality and spatial resolution of atmospheric forcing (Cavaleri 2009; Ardhuin et al. 2012). In this respect, the mesoscale activity in the lower atmosphere might be of critical importance for capturing extreme wind waves (Condron et al. 2006; Zappa et al. 2014; Markina et al. 2019).

We used NAAD HiRes and LoRes outputs for the WAVEWATCH III spectral wave model (WW3DG 2016) over the NAAD domain. Experiments (referred to as NAAD-WHR and NAAD-WLR for HiRes and LoRes forcing, respectively) were performed with the spatial resolution of 0.2° and spectral model resolution being 36 directions and 25 frequencies spanning from 0.04 Hz with an increment of 1.1. The WAVEWATCH–III configuration included ST6 parameterization for wave energy input and dissipation (Zieger et al. 2015; Liu et al. 2019) calibrated for WRF winds (Markina et al. 2018) and the ice source term package (IC0; Tolman 2003) implying the exponential attenuation of waves in partially sea ice–covered regions. To account for the ocean surface current impact on growing waves we used daily surface current velocities from the NEMO-based Ocean Reanalysis System 5 (ORAS5; Zuo et al. 2019). Cavaleri (2009) argued that the increase in spatial resolution of forcing per se does not necessarily result in the increase in significant wave height (SWH); rather, the formation of high waves is associated with higher winds, changes in the duration of wind action, and the length of fetch. In this sense, NAAD HiRes with its stronger winds (Fig. 3), smaller cyclone sizes and larger number of synoptic transients (Figs. 5 and 6) likely acts locally rather than on a larger scale.

Figures 17a and 17b show winter (January–March) climatological SWH for 1979–2018 in NAAD-WHR and the differences between NAAD-WHR and NAAD-WLR. In NAAD-WHR the highest SWH amounts to 5.4 m in the eastern subpolar North Atlantic in very close agreement with VOS observations (Gulev et al. 2003; Gulev and Grigorieva 2006). Differences between NAAD-WHR and NAAD-WLR SWH over most of the North Atlantic midlatitudes and subtropics are generally within 0.3 m but strongly increase in the subpolar North Atlantic where they amount to 0.8 m in the Irminger Sea. The highest extreme strong waves quantified as 95th percentile amount in winter in NAAD-WHR to 9 m (Fig. 17c), being higher than in NAAD-WLR by 0.2–0.5 m in the central and eastern subpolar North Atlantic (Fig. 17d). At the same time the most distinctive differences between the NAAD-WHR and NAAD-WLR experiments are identified along the southeast Greenland coast where the extreme SWH in NAAD-WHR is higher than that in NAAD-WLR by more than 1 m (up to 20% of mean values). This likely reflects a more accurate representation of katabatic winds and tip jets in this area in NAAD-WHR.

Fig. 17.
Fig. 17.

(a) Mean SWH in NAAD-WHR and (b) difference in the mean SWH between NAAD-WHR and NAAD-WLR over the period of 1979–2018, as well as (c) mean 95th percentile of SWH in NAAD-WHR and (d) difference in 95th percentile of SWH between NAAD-WHR and NAAD-WLR.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 59, 5;