Search

The NCEP and NCAR are cooperating in a project (denoted “reanalysis”) to produce a 40-year record of global analyses of atmospheric fields in support of the needs of the research and climate monitoring communities. This effort involves the recovery of land surface, ship, rawinsonde, pibal, aircraft, satellite, and other data; quality controlling and assimilating these data with a data assimilation system that is kept unchanged over the reanalysis period 1957–96. This eliminates perceived climate jumps associated with changes in the data assimilation system.The NCEP/NCAR 40-yr reanalysis uses a frozen state-of-the-art global data assimilation system and a database as complete as possible. The data assimilation and the model used are identical to the global system implemented operationally at the NCEP on 11 January 1995, except that the horizontal resolution is T62 (about 210 km). The database has been enhanced with many sources of observations not available in real time for operations, provided by different countries and organizations. The system has been designed with advanced quality control and monitoring components, and can produce 1 mon of reanalysis per day on a Cray YMP/8 supercomputer. Different types of output archives are being created to satisfy different user needs, including a “quick look” CD-ROM (one per year) with six tropospheric and stratospheric fields available twice daily, as well as surface, top-of-the-atmosphere, and isentropic fields. Reanalysis information and selected output is also available on-line via the Internet (http//:nic.fb4.noaa.gov:8000). A special CDROM, containing 13 years of selected observed, daily, monthly, and climatological data from the NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis, is included with this issue. Output variables are classified into four classes, depending on the degree to which they are influenced by the observations and/or the model. For example, “C” variables (such as precipitation and surface fluxes) are completely determined by the model during the data assimilation and should be used with caution. Nevertheless, a comparison of these variables with observations and with several climatologies shows that they generally contain considerable useful information. Eight-day forecasts, produced every 5 days, should be useful for predictability studies and for monitoring the quality of the observing systems.The 40 years of reanalysis (1957–96) should be completed in early 1997. A continuation into the future through an identical Climate Data Assimilation System will allow researchers to reliably compare recent anomalies with those in earlier decades. Since changes in the observing systems will inevitably produce perceived changes in the climate, parallel reanalyses (at least 1 year long) will be generated for the periods immediately after the introduction of new observing systems, such as new types of satellite data.NCEP plans currently call for an updated reanalysis using a state-of-the-art system every five years or so. The successive reanalyses will be greatly facilitated by the generation of the comprehensive database in the present reanalysis.

The ability of 15 atmospheric general circulation models (AGCM) to simulate the tropical intraseasonal oscillation has been studied as part of the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP). Time series of the daily upper tropospheric velocity poential and zonal wind, averaged over the equatorial belt, were provided from each AGCM simulation. These data were analyzed using a variety of techniques such as time filtering and space-time spectral analysis to identify eastward and westward moving waves. The results have been compared with an identical assessment of the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) analyses for the period 1982–1991. The models display a wide range of skill in simulating the intraseasonal oscillation. Most models show evidence of an eastward propagating anomaly in the velocity potential field, although in some models there is a greater tendency for a standing oscillation, and in one or two the field is rather chaotic with no preferred direction of propagation. Where a model has a clear eastward propagating signal, typical periodicities seem quite reasonable although there is a tendency for the models to simulate shorter periods than in the ECMWF analyses, where it is near 50 days. The results of the space-time spectral analysis have shown that no model has captured the dominance of the intraseasonal oscillation found in the analyses. Several models have peaks at intraseasonal time scales, but nearly all have relatively more power at higher frequencies (< 30 days) than the analyses. Most models underestimate the strength of the intraseasonal variability. The observed intraseasonal oscillation shows a marked seasonality in its occurrence with greatest activity during northern winter and spring. Most models failed to capture this seasonality. The interannual variability in the activity of the intraseasonal oscillation has also been assessed, although the AMIP decade is too short to provide any conclusive results. There is a suggestion that the observed oscillation was suppressed during the strong El Niño of 1982/83, and this relationship has also been reproduced by some models. The relationship between a model's intraseasonal activity, its seasonal cycle and characteristics of its basic climate has been examined. It is clear that those models with weak intraseasonal activity tend also to have a weak seasonal cycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that an accurate description of the basic climate may be a prerequisite for producing a realistic intraseasonal oscillation. In particular, models with the most realistic intraseasonal oscillations appear to have precipitation distributions which are better correlated with warm sea surface temperatures. These models predominantly employ convective parameterizations which are closed on buoyancy rather than moisture convergence.