Effects of Non-orographic Gravity Wave Drag on Seasonal and Medium-range Predictions in a Global Forecast Model
This study implements the parameterizations of convective and frontal gravity wave drag (GWD) with wide phase speed spectra into a global forecast model with a model top near 0.3 hPa. The new convective GWD scheme replaces the existing one that considers only a stationary convective GW, and the frontal GWD scheme is newly introduced. When the new GWD schemes are used, the Rayleigh friction, applied above 2 hPa to mimic the effects of missing GWD, is removed. The convective (frontal) GWs are generated mainly in the Intertropical Convergence Zone and winter extratropical storm track regions (extratropics where strong baroclinicity exists). The convective and frontal GWD derived from the new schemes are significant near the model top, with maxima of ~2-4 and ~26-58 m s−1 day−1, respectively. The differences in convective GWD between the stationary and non-stationary schemes appear mainly in the tropics and summer hemisphere, where stationary GWs cannot propagate upward. The new schemes improve the seasonal representation of stratospheric wind, through changes in both the GWD and the resolved wave forcing, which is modulated by the changed large-scale wind due to the GWD. The downward influence, in response to the changed GWD, is also positive in the tropospheric fields, such as subtropical jet and planetary-scale disturbances. For the medium-range forecasts, improved skill scores on wind speed are achieved globally with the new schemes. The improvements mostly appear only in the stratosphere during the early forecast period (~3 days) but expand to the troposphere as forecast time increases.
Key wordsNon-orographic gravity wave drag parameterization convection front forecast model
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Choi, H.-J., and H.-Y. Chun, 2011: Momentum flux spectrum of convective gravity waves. Part I: An update of a parameterization using mesoscale simulations. J. Atmos. Sci., 68, 739-759, doi:10.1175/2010-JAS3552.1.Google Scholar
- Fritts, D. C., and G. D. Nastrom, 1992: Sources of mesoscale variability of gravity waves. Part II: Frontal, convective, and jet stream excitation. J. Atmos. Sci., 49, 111-127.Google Scholar
- Hong, S.-Y., and Coauthors, 2018: The Korean Integrated Model (KIM) System for global weather forecasting (in press). Asia-Pac. J. Atmos. Sci., 54, doi:10.1007/s13143-018-0028-9.Google Scholar
- Kang, M.-J., H.-Y. Chun, and Y.-H. Kim, 2017: Momentum flux of convective gravity waves derived from an offline gravity wave parameterization. Part I: Spatiotemporal variations at source level. J. Atmos. Sci., 74, 3167-3189, doi:10.1175/JAS-D-17-0053.1.Google Scholar
- Song, I.-S., and H.-Y. Chun, 2005: Momentum flux spectrum of convectively forced internal gravity waves and its application to gravity wave drag parameterization. Part I: Theory. J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 107-124.Google Scholar
- Song, I.-S., H.-Y. Chun, R. R. Garcia, and B. A. Boville, 2007: Momentum flux spectrum of convectively forced internal gravity waves and its application to gravity wave drag parameterization. Part II: Impacts in a GCM (WACCM). J. Atmos. Sci., 64, 2286-2308.Google Scholar