Intercomparison of methods of coupling between convection and large-scale circulation: 1. Comparison over uniform surface conditions

As part of an international intercomparison project, a set of single column models (SCMs) and cloud-resolving models (CRMs) are run under the weak temperature gradient (WTG) method and the damped gravity wave (DGW) method. For each model, the implementation of the WTG or DGW method involves a simulated column which is coupled to a reference state defined with profiles obtained from the same model in radiative-convective equilibrium. The simulated column has the same surface conditions as the reference state and is initialized with profiles from the reference state. We performed systematic comparison of the behavior of different models under a consistent implementation of the WTG method and the DGW method and systematic comparison of the WTG and DGW methods in models with different physics and numerics. CRMs and SCMs produce a variety of behaviors under both WTG and DGW methods. Some of the models reproduce the reference state while others sustain a large-scale circulation which results in either substantially lower or higher precipitation compared to the value of the reference state. CRMs show a fairly linear relationship between precipitation and circulation strength. SCMs display a wider range of behaviors than CRMs. Some SCMs under the WTG method produce zero precipitation. Within an individual SCM, a DGW simulation and a corresponding WTG simulation can produce different signed circulation. When initialized with a dry troposphere, DGW simulations always result in a precipitating equilibrium state. The greatest sensitivities to the initial moisture conditions occur for multiple stable equilibria in some WTG simulations, corresponding to either a dry equilibrium state when initialized as dry or a precipitating equilibrium state when initialized as moist. Multiple equilibria are seen in more WTG simulations for higher SST. In some models, the existence of multiple equilibria is sensitive to some parameters in the WTG calculations.

A Variance-Minimizing Filter for Large-Scale Applications

A truly variance-minimizing filter is introduced and its per for mance is demonstrated with the Korteweg– DeV ries (KdV) equation and with a multilayer quasigeostrophic model of the ocean area around South Africa. It is recalled that Kalman-like filters are not variance minimizing for nonlinear model dynamics and that four - dimensional variational data assimilation (4DV AR)-like methods relying on per fect model dynamics have dif- ficulty with providing error estimates. The new method does not have these drawbacks. In fact, it combines advantages from both methods in that it does provide error estimates while automatically having balanced states after analysis, without extra computations. It is based on ensemble or Monte Carlo integrations to simulate the probability density of the model evolution. When obser vations are available, the so-called importance resampling algorithm is applied. From Bayes’ s theorem it follows that each ensemble member receives a new weight dependent on its ‘ ‘distance’ ’ t o the obser vations. Because the weights are strongly var ying, a resampling of the ensemble is necessar y. This resampling is done such that members with high weights are duplicated according to their weights, while low-weight members are largely ignored. In passing, it is noted that data assimilation is not an inverse problem by nature, although it can be for mulated that way . Also, it is shown that the posterior variance can be larger than the prior if the usual Gaussian framework is set aside. However , i n the examples presented here, the entropy of the probability densities is decreasing. The application to the ocean area around South Africa, gover ned by strongly nonlinear dynamics, shows that the method is working satisfactorily . The strong and weak points of the method are discussed and possible improvements are proposed.

Intercomparison of methods of coupling between convection and large-scale circulation. 2: Comparison over non-uniform surface conditions

As part of an international intercomparison project, the weak temperature gradient (WTG) and damped gravity wave (DGW) methods are used to parameterize large-scale dynamics in a set of cloud-resolving models (CRMs) and single column models (SCMs). The WTG or DGW method is implemented using a configuration that couples a model to a reference state defined with profiles obtained from the same model in radiative-convective equilibrium. We investigated the sensitivity of each model to changes in SST, given a fixed reference state. We performed a systematic comparison of the WTG and DGW methods in different models, and a systematic comparison of the behavior of those models using the WTG method and the DGW method. The sensitivity to the SST depends on both the large-scale parameterization method and the choice of the cloud model. In general, SCMs display a wider range of behaviors than CRMs. All CRMs using either the WTG or DGW method show an increase of precipitation with SST, while SCMs show sensitivities which are not always monotonic. CRMs using either the WTG or DGW method show a similar relationship between mean precipitation rate and column-relative humidity, while SCMs exhibit a much wider range of behaviors. DGW simulations produce large-scale velocity profiles which are smoother and less top-heavy compared to those produced by the WTG simulations. These large-scale parameterization methods provide a useful tool to identify the impact of parameterization differences on model behavior in the presence of two-way feedback between convection and the large-scale circulation.

A comparison between large-scale irregularities and scintillations in the polar ionosphere

A comparison tool has been developed by mapping the global GPS total electron content (TEC) and large coverage of ionospheric scintillations together on the geomagnetic latitude/magnetic local time coordinates. Using this tool, a comparison between large-scale ionospheric irregularities and scintillations are pursued during a geomagnetic storm. Irregularities, such as storm enhanced density (SED), middle-latitude trough and polar cap patches, are clearly identified from the TEC maps. At the edges of these irregularities, clear scintillations appeared but their behaviors were different. Phase scintillations (σsub{φ}) were almost always larger than amplitude scintillations (S4) at the edges of these irregularities, associated with bursty flows or flow reversals with large density gradients. An unexpected scintillation feature appeared inside the modeled auroral oval where S4 were much larger than σsub{φ}, most likely caused by particle precipitations around the exiting polar cap patches.

Non-radial solar wind flows induced by the motion of interplanetary coronal mass ejections

A survey of the non-radial flows (NRFs) during nearly five years of interplanetary observations revealed the average non-radial speed of the solar wind flows to be �30 km/s, with approximately one-half of the large (>100 km/s) NRFs associated with ICMEs. Conversely, the average non-radial flow speed upstream of all ICMEs is �100 km/s, with just over one-third preceded by large NRFs. These upstream flow deflections are analysed in the context of the large-scale structure of the driving ICME. We chose 5 magnetic clouds with relatively uncomplicated upstream flow deflections. Using variance analysis it was possible to infer the local axis orientation, and to qualitatively estimate the point of interception of the spacecraft with the ICME. For all 5 events the observed upstream flows were in agreement with the point of interception predicted by variance analysis. Thus we conclude that the upstream flow deflections in these events are in accord with the current concept of the large scale structure of an ICME: a curved axial loop connected to the Sun, bounded by a curved (though not necessarily circular)cross section.

The heliospheric magnetic field

The heliospheric magnetic field (HMF) is the extension of the coronal magnetic field carried out into the solar system by the solar wind. It is the means by which the Sun interacts with planetary magnetospheres and channels charged particles propagating through the heliosphere. As the HMF remains rooted at the solar photosphere as the Sun rotates, the large-scale HMF traces out an Archimedean spiral. This pattern is distorted by the interaction of fast and slow solar wind streams, as well as the interplanetary manifestations of transient solar eruptions called coronal mass ejections. On the smaller scale, the HMF exhibits an array of waves, discontinuities, and turbulence, which give hints to the solar wind formation process. This review aims to summarise observations and theory of the small- and large-scale structure of the HMF. Solar-cycle and cycle-to-cycle evolution of the HMF is discussed in terms of recent spacecraft observations and pre-spaceage proxies for the HMF in geomagnetic and galactic cosmic ray records.

The SPARC Data Initiative: Comparison of upper troposphere/lower stratosphere ozone climatologies from limb-viewing instruments and the nadir-viewing Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer

We present the first comprehensive intercomparison of currently available satellite ozone climatologies in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere (UTLS) (300–70 hPa) as part of the Stratosphere-troposphere Processes and their Role in Climate (SPARC) Data Initiative. The Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) instrument is the only nadir-viewing instrument in this initiative, as well as the only instrument with a focus on tropospheric composition. We apply the TES observational operator to ozone climatologies from the more highly vertically resolved limb-viewing instruments. This minimizes the impact of differences in vertical resolution among the instruments and allows identification of systematic differences in the large-scale structure and variability of UTLS ozone. We find that the climatologies from most of the limb-viewing instruments show positive differences (ranging from 5 to 75%) with respect to TES in the tropical UTLS, and comparison to a “zonal mean” ozonesonde climatology indicates that these differences likely represent a positive bias for p ≤ 100 hPa. In the extratropics, there is good agreement among the climatologies regarding the timing and magnitude of the ozone seasonal cycle (differences in the peak-to-peak amplitude of <15%) when the TES observational operator is applied, as well as very consistent midlatitude interannual variability. The discrepancies in ozone temporal variability are larger in the tropics, with differences between the data sets of up to 55% in the seasonal cycle amplitude. However, the differences among the climatologies are everywhere much smaller than the range produced by current chemistry-climate models, indicating that the multiple-instrument ensemble is useful for quantitatively evaluating these models.