150 likes | 258 Views
Some ideas for IBTrACS. Adam Sobel, Columbia University (based on much work & discussion with Suzana Camargo, and some from the CLIVAR working group on TCs and climate) 12 April 2011. Outline . A couple quick examples of our research, for context
E N D
Some ideas for IBTrACS Adam Sobel, Columbia University (based on much work & discussion with Suzana Camargo, and some from the CLIVAR working group on TCs and climate) 12 April 2011
Outline • A couple quick examples of our research, for context • A couple of ideas for how IBTrACS could expand its scope
Some foci of our research • Our research is aimed at understanding large-scale climate variations influence TC statistics • As such we want good data on TCs of course; we tend to look at this together with some measures of the local environment for genesis/intensification • Another theme is TCs (or “TC-like vortices”) in global models
Example 1: actual mean intensity reached by storms over each season is compared to that implied by potential intensity theory. PI evaluated along the track of each storm. Wing, Sobel & Camargo (2007), Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L08810, doi:10.1029/2006GL028581, 2007
Example 2: study of genesis of “TC-like vortices” in a low-resolution GCM by compositing the vortices along tracks. Camargo & Sobel 2004, Tellus56A, 56–67
What could IBTrACS do to make data set more valuable to users like us? • TC size. This would have many uses, but in particular more meaningful calculations of ACE/PDI etc.
What could IBTrACS do to make data set more valuable to users like us? • TC size. This would have many uses, but in particular more meaningful calculations of ACE/PDI etc. • Environmental indices could be computed (using, e.g., reanalysis data) along tracks and saved. Examples: potential intensity, genesis potential indices.
What could IBTrACS do to make data set more valuable to users like us? • TC size. This would have many uses, but in particular more meaningful calculations of ACE/PDI etc. • Environmental indices could be computed (using, e.g., reanalysis data) along tracks and saved. Examples: potential intensity, genesis potential indices. • This would make it easy to do analyses involving these indices.
Some issues with environmental indices • There is work involved in computing them. • There are various competing indices and you might not want to have to take a position on which is best by choosing one. • Even choosing to use such indices at all implies some endorsement of the ideas behind them. • A milder form could be to save key state variables in the column (e.g., T, q etc.) from reanalysis, in a box averaged around the storm of some size. From these, indices (or whatever) could be computed by user.
The major new development in TC-climate studies is global high-resolution models http://nicam.jp/hiki/?About+NICAM
The science coming out of these models is exciting Interannual variability in Atlantic TC number simulated at 50km horiz. resolution, compared to IBTrACS Zhao et al. (2009), J. Climate, 22, 6653-6678
TC-Climate working group • This is a working group created under CLIVAR. 2-year lifetime (see http://www.usclivar.org/Organization/Hurr_WG_Prospectus_Nov-revision.pdf) • Model intercomparison will be done with the new generation of high-resolution global models, using prescribed SST • Scenarios: current climatology, +2K warming, warming in certain basins only…
Radical expansion of IBTrACSinto model world? • IBTrACS could archive track and intensity data (and perhaps other variables e.g. size) from these models • The format could be the same as currently used for obs • Tracking will be done anyway by the working group, you would just have to format and archive it
Pros • These models are the hot new thing in TC/Climate studies, the scientific potential is just beginning to be explored • Lots of people would probably use the data (think of IPCC AR4/CMIP3…) • Direct comparison to IBTrACS observed storm statistics would become very easy • Much science would be facilitated
Cons • They are still just models, not reality • Each model has different properties, interpretation/comparison is not simple, potential for misuse is high • Surely in a few years there will be new and better models… • The CLIVAR WG members have not agreed yet to put it through IBTrACS (though initial reactions seem to be positive)