4.7 Review

OCEAN-CLOUD-ATMOSPHERELAND INTERACTIONS IN THE SOUTHEASTERN PACIFIC

期刊

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00246.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/J023515/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. NERC [NE/J023515/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences
  4. Directorate For Geosciences [1233874] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences
  6. Directorate For Geosciences [1242639] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present paper describes the Variability of the American Monsoon Systems (VAMOS) Ocean-Cloud-Atmosphere-Land Study (VOCALS), an international research program focused on the improved understanding and modeling of the southeastern Pacific (SEP) climate system on diurnal to interannual time scales. In the framework of the SEP climate, VOCALS has two fundamental objectives: 1) improved simulations by coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (CGCMs), with an emphasis on reducing systematic errors in the region; and 2) improved estimates of the indirect effects of aerosols on low clouds and climate, with an emphasis on the more precise quantification of those effects. VOCALS major scientific activities are outlined, and selected achievements are highlighted. Activities described include monitoring in the region, a large international field campaign (the VOCALS Regional Experiment), and two model assessments. The program has already produced significant advances in the understanding of major issues in the SEP: the coastal circulation and the diurnal cycle, the ocean heat budget, factors controlling precipitation and formation of pockets of open cells in stratocumulus decks, aerosol impacts on clouds, and estimation of the first aerosol indirect effect. The paper concludes with a brief presentation on VOCALS contributions to community capacity building before a summary of scientific findings and remaining questions.

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

4.7
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