The relative importance of different parameterized physical process and baroclinic dynamics in numerical simulations of explosive oceanic cyclogenesis is examined. The numerical simulations are derived from a global spectral model having nine vertical levels and a rhomboidal 31 truncation. Eleven cases of rapid cyclogenesis over the North Pacific Ocean that occurred in a 150-day simulation of perpetual January conditions are used as initial conditions for model sensitivity experiments. Statistical techniques based on predictability theory are employed to estimate the relative importance of the sensitivity experiments. Results from the simulation comparisons indicate that the total diabatic heating accounts for about one-half of the cyclone's deepening rate, with baroclinic dynamics accounting for the remaining part. The absence of diabatic heating also leads to a systematic error in the position of the cyclone. Surface fluxes of sensible heat are responsible for about one-half of the deepening rate due to diabatic processes, while latent heating due to grid-scale resolvable precipitation in conjunction with surface latent heat flux accounts for most of the remaining half. An increase in the surface drag over the ocean to its larger land value was found to be of comparable importance to both surface sensible heat flux and latent beat release, but was only half as important as the total diabatic heating. These changes in the model were judged to produce highly significant response especially at low levels. The addition of radiative heating, the substitution of a Kuo-type cumulus parameterization scheme for the model's default moist convective adjustment scheme, and a factor of 4 increase in the horizontal diffusion did not produce significant responses. The case-to-case variability exhibited by the 11-member ensemble is examined. The potential danger in attempting to generalize results from a single case of explosive cyclogenesis as being representative of those for the ensemble average is illustrated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mullen et al. (1988) studied this question.