Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIENTIAL AND ECMWF REANALYZED CONDENSED MOISTURE PROFILE OVER THE NORTHEASTERN SPHERE
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIENTIAL AND ECMWF REANALYZED CONDENSED MOISTURE PROFILE OVER THE NORTHEASTERN SPHERE
Do you wish to request the book?
A COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIENTIAL AND ECMWF REANALYZED CONDENSED MOISTURE PROFILE OVER THE NORTHEASTERN SPHERE
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPERIENTIAL AND ECMWF REANALYZED CONDENSED MOISTURE PROFILE OVER THE NORTHEASTERN SPHERE
2019
Overview
Base on January and July 4-times daily ECMWF Interim data from 2009 to 2018 over the Northeast Sphere (0–180E,0–90N), the condensed moisture profile of experiential methods and that of ECMWF analysis are compared. The result shows that, the meridional-height distribution of mean cloud condensed moisture has a maximum slab spreading near ground in the Arctic region in July, and the maximum takes a circular shape at 700 hPa above 30N latitude in January. The distribution feature unlike the universal profile, it distributes in a single or double peak function manner, instead of a constant value. The quick decreasing level height and thickness varies with latitude, especially in January. The second experiential profile concerning warm cloud assumes air parcel lifting adiabatically, the liquid water path (LWP) is compared for general information. The result shows that the experiential LWP is much larger than that of the reanalysis by 1 to 2 order, decreasing with latitudes. The possible reason of LWP difference is from the critic water content value of cloud boundary identification. If the value is small, the thickness of warm cloud will be large, temperature and pressure at the cloud base are both large too, results in a larger LWP. These results will enrich the knowledge of the condensed moisture characteristics of ECMWF reanalysis and the experiential moisture profile methods.
