4.6 Article

Variability in surface meteorology and air-sea fluxes due to cumulus convective systems observed during CINDY/DYNAMO

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES
卷 119, 期 5, 页码 2064-2078

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2013JD020621

关键词

surface meteorology; air-sea flux; convective influence; CINDY; DYNAMO

资金

  1. NSF
  2. NOAA
  3. ONR
  4. DOE
  5. NASA
  6. JAMSTEC
  7. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan [B-25800268, B-25287119]
  8. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25287119, 25800268] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the variability in surface meteorological parameters and air-sea heat fluxes due to cold pools emanating from cumulus convective systems observed over the tropical Indian Ocean in November 2011. In particular, this study focuses on convective systems that are spatially smaller than mesoscale convective systems in a southeasterly trade wind environment. Composite analyses of convectively active periods show an increase in the sensible heat flux by 15-20Wm(-2) that is primarily attributed to an increase in the difference between the surface air temperature and sea surface temperature and an increase in the latent heat flux by 30-70Wm(-2) due to enhanced surface wind speeds. A succession of convectively active periods leads to a greater influence than those occurring independently. The direction of the surface wind velocity anomaly due to cold pools tends to be close to that of the environmental wind velocity, resulting in an efficient enhancement of wind speed. This study also demonstrates the close relation between cold pool intensities and convective activity. In particular, two measures of cold pool intensity, a minimum surface air temperature and a maximum amount of surface wind speed enhancement, are correlated with each other and with the convective activity around the observation point measured by radar-estimated rainfall and radar echo coverage.

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

4.6
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