4.6 Article

Northern Hemisphere winter storm track trends since 1959 derived from multiple reanalysis datasets

期刊

CLIMATE DYNAMICS
卷 47, 期 5-6, 页码 1435-1454

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00382-015-2911-8

关键词

Storm tracks; Extratropical cyclones; Trend; Northern Hemisphere

资金

  1. NOAA [NA11OAR4310081]
  2. NSF [AGS1261311]
  3. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences
  4. Directorate For Geosciences [1261311] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a comprehensive comparison of Northern Hemisphere winter storm track trend since 1959 derived from multiple reanalysis datasets and rawinsonde observations has been conducted. In addition, trends in terms of variance and cyclone track statistics have been compared. Previous studies, based largely on the National Center for Environmental Prediction-National Center for Atmospheric Research Reanalysis (NNR), have suggested that both the Pacific and Atlantic storm tracks have significantly intensified between the 1950s and 1990s. Comparison with trends derived from rawinsonde observations suggest that the trends derived from NNR are significantly biased high, while those from the European Center for Medium Range Weather Forecasts 40-year Reanalysis and the Japanese 55-year Reanalysis are much less biased but still too high. Those from the two twentieth century reanalysis datasets are most consistent with observations but may exhibit slight biases of opposite signs. Between 1959 and 2010, Pacific storm track activity has likely increased by 10 % or more, while Atlantic storm track activity has likely increased by < 10 %. Our analysis suggests that trends in Pacific and Atlantic basin wide storm track activity prior to the 1950s derived from the two twentieth century reanalysis datasets are unlikely to be reliable due to changes in density of surface observations. Nevertheless, these datasets may provide useful information on interannual variability, especially over the Atlantic.

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