4.4 Article

Temperature and Water Vapor Variance Scaling in Global Models: Comparisons to Satellite and Aircraft Data

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
卷 68, 期 9, 页码 2156-2168

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/2011JAS3737.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. NASA
  2. AIRS
  3. Office of Naval Research [N0001408IP20064]
  4. NOAA MAPPCPO
  5. NSF [ATM0755310]
  6. VOCALS NSF [ATM-0745702]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Observations of the scale dependence of height-resolved temperature T and water vapor q variability are valuable for improved subgrid-scale climate model parameterizations and model evaluation. Variance spectral benchmarks for T and q obtained from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) are compared to those generated by state-of-the-art numerical weather prediction analyses'' and free-running'' climate model simulations with spatial resolution comparable to AIRS. The T and q spectra from both types of models are generally too steep, with small-scale variance up to several factors smaller than AIRS. However, the two model analyses more closely resemble AIRS than the two free-running model simulations. Scaling exponents obtained for AIRS column water vapor (CWV) and height-resolved layers of q are also compared to the superparameterized Community Atmospheric Model (SP-CAM), highlighting large differences in the magnitude of CWV variance and the relative flatness of height-resolved q scaling in SP-CAM. Height-resolved q spectra obtained from aircraft observations during the Variability of the American Monsoon Systems Ocean-Cloud-Atmosphere-Land Study Regional Experiment (VOCALS-REx) demonstrate changes in scaling exponents that depend on the observations' proximity to the base of the subsidence inversion with scale breaks that occur at approximately the dominant cloud scale (similar to 10-30 km). This suggests that finer spatial resolution requirements must be considered for future satellite observations of T and q than those currently planned for infrared and microwave satellite sounders.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据