4.4 Article

Gradient Wind Balance in Tropical Cyclones in High-Resolution Global Experiments

期刊

MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW
卷 142, 期 5, 页码 1908-1926

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/MWR-D-13-00115.1

关键词

Tropical cyclones; Cloud resolving models

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25800266] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The degree of gradient wind balance was investigated in a number of tropical cyclones (TCs) simulated under realistic environments. The results of global-scale numerical simulations without cumulus parameterization were used, with a horizontal mesh size of 7 km. On average, azimuthally averaged maximum tangential velocities at 850 (925) hPa in the simulated TCs were 0.72% (1.95%) faster than gradient wind-balanced tangential velocity (GWV) during quasi-steady periods. Of the simulated TCs, 75% satisfied the gradient wind balance at the radius of maximum wind speed (RMW) at 850 and at 925 hPa to within about 4.0%. These results were qualitatively similar to those obtained during the intensification phase. In contrast, averages of the maximum and minimum deviations from the GWV, in all the azimuths at the RMW, achieved up to 40% of the maximum tangential velocity. Azimuthally averaged tangential velocities exceeded the GWV (i.e., supergradient) inside the RMW in the lower troposphere, whereas the velocities were close to or slightly slower than GWV (i.e., subgradient) in the other regions. The tangential velocities at 925 hPa were faster (slower) in the right-hand (left hand) side of the TC motion. When the tangential velocities at the RMW were supergradient, the primary circulation tended to decay rapidly in the vertical direction and slowly in the radial direction, and the eyewall updraft and the RMW were at larger radii. Statistical analyses revealed that the TC with supergradient wind at the RMW at 850 hPa was characterized by stronger intensity, larger RMW, more axisymmetric structure, and an intensity stronger than potential intensity.

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