% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Podglajen:885398,
author = {Podglajen, Aurelien and Hertzog, Albert and Plougonven,
Riwal and Legras, Bernard},
title = {{L}agrangian gravity wave spectra in the lower stratosphere
of current (re)analyses},
journal = {Atmospheric chemistry and physics},
volume = {20},
number = {15},
issn = {1680-7324},
address = {Katlenburg-Lindau},
publisher = {EGU},
reportid = {FZJ-2020-03795},
pages = {9331 - 9350},
year = {2020},
abstract = {Due to their increasing spatial resolution, numerical
weather prediction (NWP) models and the associated analyses
resolve a growing fraction of the gravity wave (GW)
spectrum. However, it is unclear how well this
“resolved” part of the spectrum truly compares to the
actual atmospheric variability. In particular, the
Lagrangian variability, relevant, for example, to
atmospheric dispersion and to microphysical modeling in the
upper troposphere–lower stratosphere (UTLS), has not yet
been documented in recent products.To address this
shortcoming, this paper presents an assessment of the GW
spectrum as a function of the intrinsic (air parcel
following) frequency in recent (re)analyses (ERA-Interim,
ERA5, the ECMWF operational analysis and MERRA-2).
Long-duration, quasi-Lagrangian balloon observations in the
equatorial and Antarctic lower stratosphere are used as a
reference for the atmospheric spectrum and are compared to
synthetic balloon observations along trajectories calculated
using the wind and temperature fields of the reanalyses.
Overall, the reanalyses represent realistic features of the
spectrum, notably the spectral gap between planetary and
gravity waves and a peak in horizontal kinetic energy
associated with inertial waves near the Coriolis frequency f
in the polar region. In the tropics, they represent the
slope of the spectrum at low frequency. However, the
variability is generally underestimated even in the
low-frequency portion of the spectrum. In particular, the
near-inertial peak, although present in the reanalyses, has
a reduced magnitude compared to balloon observations. We
compare the observed and modeled variabilities of
temperature, zonal momentum flux and vertical wind speed,
which are related to low-, mid- and high-frequency waves,
respectively. The probability density function (PDF)
distributions have similar shapes but show increasing
disagreement with increasing intrinsic frequency. Since at
those altitudes they are mainly caused by gravity waves, we
also compare the geographic distribution of vertical wind
fluctuations in the different products, which emphasizes the
increase of both GW variance and intermittency with
horizontal resolution. Finally, we quantify the fraction of
resolved variability and its dependency on model resolution
for the different variables. In all (re)analysis products, a
significant part of the variability is still missing,
especially at high frequencies, and should hence be
parameterized. Among the two polar balloon datasets used,
one was broadcast on the Global Telecommunication System for
assimilation in NWP models, while the other consists of
independent observations (unassimilated in the reanalyses).
Comparing the Lagrangian spectra between the two campaigns
shows that the (re)analyses are largely influenced by
balloon data assimilation, which especially enhances the
variance at low GW frequency.},
cin = {IEK-7},
ddc = {550},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-7-20101013},
pnm = {244 - Composition and dynamics of the upper troposphere and
middle atmosphere (POF3-244)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-244},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000562089000001},
doi = {10.5194/acp-20-9331-2020},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/885398},
}