the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Validation of the geostrophic approximation using ERA5 and the potential of long-term radio occultation data for supporting wind field monitoring
Abstract. Global long-term stable wind fields are valuable information for climate analyses of atmospheric dynamics. Their monitoring remains a challenging task, given shortcomings of available observations. One promising option for progress is the use of radio occultation (RO) satellite data, based on which the winds are estimated using the geostrophic approximation. Hence, in this study we focus on two goals, explored through European Re-Analysis ERA5 and RO datasets, using monthly-mean January and July data over 2007–2020 with a 2.5° × 2.5° resolution. First, we compare actual and geostrophic ERA5 wind speeds to evaluate the validity of the geostrophic approximation. Second, we test how well ERA5 and RO geostrophic winds agree. We find the geostrophic approximation to work well within 2 m s-1 accuracy almost globally (5°–85° latitude), especially over the summer hemisphere; larger differences (more than 5 m s-1) may occur in the winter stratosphere. We noticed the effect of large mountain ranges on the wind flow as a wave-like pattern, also in the difference between RO and ERA5 geostrophic winds, pointing to effects of different geopotential height estimations. Generally, RO and ERA5 geostrophic winds showed very good agreement. In the long-term, systematic differences in decadal trends of higher than 0.5 m s-1 per decade were found at subtropical latitudes, mainly related to observing system changes in the year 2016 that influenced ERA5. Together with the validity of the geostrophic approximation, this indicates that the long-term stability of RO-derived wind field monitoring can provide added value to reanalysis winds, for the benefit of climate monitoring and analyses.
- Preprint
(1963 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2023-100', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Jul 2023
This manuscript presents the validation of the geostrophic approximation using the ERA5 reanalysis and the possibility of deriving geostrophic horizontal winds from geopotential fields derived from radio occultation data. This is an interesting study because the geostrophic approximation is often used due to the lack of wind measurements in the stratosphere, but its limits of validity are not well known, especially near the equator where the Coriolis force is weak. The document is clear and well written. I consider it acceptable for publication after a few minor corrections detailed below.
1) It would be useful for the reader to better explain how the geopotential is obtained from radio occultation (RO) data, as it is not a quantity obtained directly from RO observations, but derived from the integration of atmospheric density.
2) Please indicate the major changes that occurred in 2016 in the ERA5 observing system that may explain the changes observed in the difference between ERA5g and ROg.
3) In the winter middle. stratosphere (10hPa), the geostrophic approximation overestimates the wind speed and the overestimation seems to increase with wind speed. It is greater in the SH where the stratospheric jet is faster than in the NH. If the cyclostrophic term is taken into account (term in V2/R due to the rapid circulation around the polar vortex), does the agreement with the ERA5 winds become better?
4) Please check the alphabetical order of the publications (i.e. Hierro before Healy)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2023-100-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Julia Danzer, 21 Jul 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2023-100/amt-2023-100-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Julia Danzer, 21 Jul 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2023-100', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Jul 2023
The paper makes use of ERA5 monthly mean geopotential fields for July and January on pressure levels from 1000 hPa to 10 hPa and 2.5°x2.5° horizontal grid during the time period 2007 to 2020. For the same time period and resolution, monthly mean geopotential is computed from RO data using aggregated atmospheric profiles. From each geopotential data set, local geostrophic wind is computed using the geostrophic wind equation at pressure levels. The ERA5 and RO geostrophic winds are then used to "1) test the validity of the geostrophic approximation for representing monthly-mean winds, and to 2) evaluate the utility of RO derived monthly-mean winds, for their potential added value as a separate wind field monitoring data record providing improved long-term stability".The paper reads as a technical report and provides little scientific understanding.The method of the computation of geopotential from RO data is not well explained, e.g. it is unclear if it is only the hydrostatic height from temperature profile or also moisture was accounted for, whether averaging was carried out on input RO profiles or derived geopotential. More importantly, the computation of geostrophic winds is in the opinion of this reviewer unsuitable. The authors compute the geostrophic wind on the local f plane, latitude by latitude. Instead, one should derive geostrophic winds on the sphere that provide a smooth representation of the flow. An appropriate way of doing this is by using the stream function, ideally on model levels to avoid any errors due to interpolation, especially over the orography and in the lower troposphere. This global stream function provides the geostrophic wind on the sphere including the tropics.On the other hand, this does not allow the comparison with the RO data in terms of geostrophic winds. If this is what the authors really intend to do as argued by their goal 2), the analysis should be described as "... geostrophic winds on a local f-plane..." and limited to the midlatitude free troposphere region.If the authors choose to resubmit the manuscript, more consideration should be given to the interpretation. The differences between the full and geostrophic winds should be called ageostrophic wind (not a "bias"), etc.Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/amt-2023-100-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Julia Danzer, 21 Jul 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2023-100/amt-2023-100-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Julia Danzer, 21 Jul 2023
-
EC1: 'Comment on amt-2023-100', Ad Stoffelen, 29 Jul 2023
Dear authors,
Please find attached a late review that came in during the holiday period. The comments and suggestion are very relevant to your manuscript and I'd be grateful if you provided a rebuttal and consider furher improvements to your manuscript.
Please let me know when you cannot provide a review within the extended deadline.
Thanks,
Ad
-
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Julia Danzer, 07 Aug 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2023-100/amt-2023-100-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Julia Danzer, 07 Aug 2023
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2023-100', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Jul 2023
This manuscript presents the validation of the geostrophic approximation using the ERA5 reanalysis and the possibility of deriving geostrophic horizontal winds from geopotential fields derived from radio occultation data. This is an interesting study because the geostrophic approximation is often used due to the lack of wind measurements in the stratosphere, but its limits of validity are not well known, especially near the equator where the Coriolis force is weak. The document is clear and well written. I consider it acceptable for publication after a few minor corrections detailed below.
1) It would be useful for the reader to better explain how the geopotential is obtained from radio occultation (RO) data, as it is not a quantity obtained directly from RO observations, but derived from the integration of atmospheric density.
2) Please indicate the major changes that occurred in 2016 in the ERA5 observing system that may explain the changes observed in the difference between ERA5g and ROg.
3) In the winter middle. stratosphere (10hPa), the geostrophic approximation overestimates the wind speed and the overestimation seems to increase with wind speed. It is greater in the SH where the stratospheric jet is faster than in the NH. If the cyclostrophic term is taken into account (term in V2/R due to the rapid circulation around the polar vortex), does the agreement with the ERA5 winds become better?
4) Please check the alphabetical order of the publications (i.e. Hierro before Healy)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2023-100-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Julia Danzer, 21 Jul 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2023-100/amt-2023-100-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Julia Danzer, 21 Jul 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2023-100', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Jul 2023
The paper makes use of ERA5 monthly mean geopotential fields for July and January on pressure levels from 1000 hPa to 10 hPa and 2.5°x2.5° horizontal grid during the time period 2007 to 2020. For the same time period and resolution, monthly mean geopotential is computed from RO data using aggregated atmospheric profiles. From each geopotential data set, local geostrophic wind is computed using the geostrophic wind equation at pressure levels. The ERA5 and RO geostrophic winds are then used to "1) test the validity of the geostrophic approximation for representing monthly-mean winds, and to 2) evaluate the utility of RO derived monthly-mean winds, for their potential added value as a separate wind field monitoring data record providing improved long-term stability".The paper reads as a technical report and provides little scientific understanding.The method of the computation of geopotential from RO data is not well explained, e.g. it is unclear if it is only the hydrostatic height from temperature profile or also moisture was accounted for, whether averaging was carried out on input RO profiles or derived geopotential. More importantly, the computation of geostrophic winds is in the opinion of this reviewer unsuitable. The authors compute the geostrophic wind on the local f plane, latitude by latitude. Instead, one should derive geostrophic winds on the sphere that provide a smooth representation of the flow. An appropriate way of doing this is by using the stream function, ideally on model levels to avoid any errors due to interpolation, especially over the orography and in the lower troposphere. This global stream function provides the geostrophic wind on the sphere including the tropics.On the other hand, this does not allow the comparison with the RO data in terms of geostrophic winds. If this is what the authors really intend to do as argued by their goal 2), the analysis should be described as "... geostrophic winds on a local f-plane..." and limited to the midlatitude free troposphere region.If the authors choose to resubmit the manuscript, more consideration should be given to the interpretation. The differences between the full and geostrophic winds should be called ageostrophic wind (not a "bias"), etc.Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/amt-2023-100-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Julia Danzer, 21 Jul 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2023-100/amt-2023-100-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Julia Danzer, 21 Jul 2023
-
EC1: 'Comment on amt-2023-100', Ad Stoffelen, 29 Jul 2023
Dear authors,
Please find attached a late review that came in during the holiday period. The comments and suggestion are very relevant to your manuscript and I'd be grateful if you provided a rebuttal and consider furher improvements to your manuscript.
Please let me know when you cannot provide a review within the extended deadline.
Thanks,
Ad
-
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Julia Danzer, 07 Aug 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2023-100/amt-2023-100-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Julia Danzer, 07 Aug 2023
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
593 | 195 | 55 | 843 | 42 | 42 |
- HTML: 593
- PDF: 195
- XML: 55
- Total: 843
- BibTeX: 42
- EndNote: 42
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1