Central Arctic weather forecasting: Confronting the ECMWF IFS with observations from the Arctic Ocean 2018 expedition

被引:29
作者
Tjernstrom, Michael [1 ,2 ]
Svensson, Gunilla [1 ,2 ]
Magnusson, Linus [3 ]
Brooks, Ian M. [4 ]
Prytherch, John [1 ,2 ]
Vullers, Jutta [4 ]
Young, Gillian [4 ]
机构
[1] Stockholm Univ, Dept Meteorol, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden
[2] Stockholm Univ, Bolin Ctr Climate Res, Stockholm, Sweden
[3] European Ctr Medium Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, Berks, England
[4] Univ Leeds, Sch Earth & Environm, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England
基金
英国自然环境研究理事会; 欧盟地平线“2020”;
关键词
Arctic boundary layer; Arctic climate; Arctic clouds; Arctic reanalysis; Arctic weather prediction; model error; model evaluation; surface energy budget; SUMMER CLOUD OCEAN; SEA-ICE; BOUNDARY-LAYER; REANALYSES; AMPLIFICATION; RADIATION;
D O I
10.1002/qj.3971
中图分类号
P4 [大气科学(气象学)];
学科分类号
0706 ; 070601 ;
摘要
Forecasts with the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts' numerical weather prediction model are evaluated using an extensive set of observations from the Arctic Ocean 2018 expedition on the Swedish icebreaker Oden. The atmospheric model (Cy45r1) is similar to that used for the ERA5 reanalysis (Cy41r2). The evaluation covers 1 month, with the icebreaker moored to drifting sea ice near the North Pole; a total of 125 forecasts issued four times per day were used. Standard surface observations and 6-hourly soundings were assimilated to ensure that the initial model error is small. Model errors can be divided into two groups. First, variables related to dynamics feature errors that grow with forecast length; error spread also grows with time. Initial errors are small, facilitating a robust evaluation of the second group; thermodynamic variables. These feature fast error growth for 6-12 hr, after which errors saturates; error spread is roughly constant. Both surface and near-surface air temperatures are too warm in the model. During the summer both are typically above zero in spite of the ongoing melt; however, the warm bias increases as the surface freezes. The warm bias is due to a too warm atmosphere; errors in surface sensible heat flux transfer additional heat from the atmosphere to the surface. The lower troposphere temperature error has a distinct vertical structure: a substantial warm bias in the lowest few 100 m and a large cold bias around 1 km; this structure features a significant diurnal cycle and is tightly coupled to errors in the modelled clouds. Clouds appear too often and in a too deep layer of the lower atmosphere; the lowest clouds essentially never break up. The largest error in cloud presence is aligned with the largest cold bias at around 1 km.
引用
收藏
页码:1278 / 1299
页数:22
相关论文
共 47 条
  • [1] Properties of Arctic liquid and mixed-phase clouds from shipborne Cloudnet observations during ACSE 2014
    Achtert, Peggy
    O'Connor, Ewan J.
    Brooks, Ian M.
    Sotiropoulou, Georgia
    Shupe, Matthew D.
    Pospichal, Bernhard
    Brooks, Barbara J.
    Tjernstrom, Michael
    [J]. ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, 2020, 20 (23) : 14983 - 15002
  • [2] Aspects of ECMWF model performance in polar areas
    Bauer, P.
    Magnusson, L.
    Thepaut, Jean-Noel
    Hamill, Thomas M.
    [J]. QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, 2016, 142 (695) : 583 - 596
  • [3] BIRCH CE, 2009, J GEOPHYSICAL RES, V4D13
  • [4] The Turbulent Structure of the Arctic Summer Boundary Layer During The Arctic Summer Cloud-Ocean Study
    Brooks, Ian M.
    Tjernstrom, Michael
    Persson, P. Ola G.
    Shupe, Matthew D.
    Atkinson, Rebecca A.
    Canut, Guylaine
    Birch, Cathryn E.
    Mauritsen, Thorsten
    Sedlar, Joseph
    Brooks, Barbara J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2017, 122 (18) : 9685 - 9704
  • [5] Near-surface meteorology during the Arctic Summer Cloud Ocean Study (ASCOS): evaluation of reanalyses and global climate models
    de Boer, G.
    Shupe, M. D.
    Caldwell, P. M.
    Bauer, S. E.
    Persson, O.
    Boyle, J. S.
    Kelley, M.
    Klein, S. A.
    Tjernstrom, M.
    [J]. ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, 2014, 14 (01) : 427 - 445
  • [6] 50 years of the Monin-Obukhov similarity theory
    Foken, Thomas
    [J]. BOUNDARY-LAYER METEOROLOGY, 2006, 119 (03) : 431 - 447
  • [7] Haiden T., 2019, ECMWF Technical Memoranda No. 853
  • [8] A Look at 2017 Takeaway Points from the State of the Climate Supplement
    Hartfield, G.
    Blunden, J.
    Arndt, D. S.
    [J]. BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, 2018, 99 (08) : 1527 - 1539
  • [9] The ERA5 global reanalysis
    Hersbach, Hans
    Bell, Bill
    Berrisford, Paul
    Hirahara, Shoji
    Horanyi, Andras
    Munoz-Sabater, Joaquin
    Nicolas, Julien
    Peubey, Carole
    Radu, Raluca
    Schepers, Dinand
    Simmons, Adrian
    Soci, Cornel
    Abdalla, Saleh
    Abellan, Xavier
    Balsamo, Gianpaolo
    Bechtold, Peter
    Biavati, Gionata
    Bidlot, Jean
    Bonavita, Massimo
    De Chiara, Giovanna
    Dahlgren, Per
    Dee, Dick
    Diamantakis, Michail
    Dragani, Rossana
    Flemming, Johannes
    Forbes, Richard
    Fuentes, Manuel
    Geer, Alan
    Haimberger, Leo
    Healy, Sean
    Hogan, Robin J.
    Holm, Elias
    Janiskova, Marta
    Keeley, Sarah
    Laloyaux, Patrick
    Lopez, Philippe
    Lupu, Cristina
    Radnoti, Gabor
    de Rosnay, Patricia
    Rozum, Iryna
    Vamborg, Freja
    Villaume, Sebastien
    Thepaut, Jean-Noel
    [J]. QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, 2020, 146 (730) : 1999 - 2049
  • [10] Holland MarikaM., 2011, GEOPHYS RES LETT, V38