1 / 47

Aspects of Moat Formation in Tropical Cyclone Eyewall Replacement Cycles

Aspects of Moat Formation in Tropical Cyclone Eyewall Replacement Cycles. Christopher Rozoff 3 April 2005 2006 2007. Timeline of world history during Chris Rozoff’s time at CSU. A bunch of bad stuff happens. The Clinton era ends. 2000. 2005. 2006. 2007. 2001. 2002.

zavad
Download Presentation

Aspects of Moat Formation in Tropical Cyclone Eyewall Replacement Cycles

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Aspects of Moat Formation in Tropical Cyclone Eyewall Replacement Cycles Christopher Rozoff 3 April 2005 2006 2007

  2. Timeline of world history during Chris Rozoff’s time at CSU A bunch of bad stuff happens The Clinton era ends 2000 2005 2006 2007 2001 2002 Time (scale = many, many years)

  3. 1 Average Lifespan of a Crow

  4. 2 Lifespans of House Sparrows

  5. 61 Lifespans of Honey Bees

  6. Aspects of Moat Formation in Tropical Cyclone Eyewall Replacement Cycles Christopher Rozoff 3 April 2007

  7. Acknowledgements • My advisor – Prof. WayneSchubert / My committee – Profs. William Cotton, Richard Johnson, Iuliana Oprea (CSU mathematics) • Prof. Michael Montgomery (Naval Postgraduate School) • Other Collaborators: Paul Ciesielski, Prof. Scott Fulton (Clarkson U.), Dr. Jim Kossin (UW-Wisc), Brian McNoldy, Rick Taft, Wes Terwey, and Jonathan Vigh • Drs. Will Cheng, Louie Grasso, Sue van den Heever, and Mel Nicholls (U. Colorado) for help with RAMS throughout my CSU tenure. • Drs. Michael Black (HRD), Neal Dorst (HRD), and Hugh Willoughby (FIU), and Michael Bell (NCAR) and Kevin Mallen for help with real hurricane data. • Prof. Matthew Parker (NCSU) and Russ Schumacher for useful discussion on dynamic pressure perturbation analysis. • Gail Cordova and department staff for making life easy for research and learning. • Schubert group members and many others for an invigorating learning environment at CSU. • Your tax dollars • My family for dedicated support and for attending my defense. • My wife Jill for unearthly patience, support, and encouragement.

  8. Outline 1. Introduction 2. Rapid filamentation zones 3. Observations 4. Idealized cloud model results 5. Concluding Remarks

  9. 1. Introduction:Eyewall replacement cycles and rapid intensity fluctuations Hurricane Wilma (2005) 10/19 0014 UTC 130 kts/946 hPa 10/19 1358 UTC 157 kts/885 hPa 10/20 0000 UTC 135 kts/892 hPa 10/19 1214 UTC 160 kts/882 hPa 10/20 1234 UTC 130 kts/910 hPa 10/20 2347 UTC 130 kts/923 hPa 10/21 1219 UTC 125 kts/929 hPa 10/22 0220 UTC 117 kts/932 hPa SSM 85 GHz Composites

  10. 1. Introduction:Formation of a secondary eyewall • Axisymmetric (circularly symmetric) hurricane models • Forcing mechanism needed to initiate secondary eyewall: • Symmetric instability (Willoughby et al.,1984; Zeng, 1996) • Other sources of low-level convergence (Hausman, 2001; Nong and Emanuel, 2003) • To sustain, wind-induced surface heat exchange (WISHE) (Willoughby et al., 1984; Nong and Emanuel, 2003) Later Earlier Subsidence Inversion Strong forcing r r Center of eye Center of eye

  11. 1. Introduction:Formation of a secondary eyewall 2D, nondivergent barotropic models • Multiple vortex interactions (e.g., Kuo et al., 2004) in a horizontal plane. (Asymmetric processes are important here!) Extensive weaker vorticity (e.g., Convective rainbands) t = 3 hr t = 12 hr t = 0 hr y x Stronger vorticity (eyewall)

  12. 1. Introduction:Formation of a secondary eyewall • Other perhaps crucial asymmetric processes: • Vortex Rossby waves and wave-mean flow interactions accelerate mean flow at a radius determined by the mean vortex structure (e.g., Montgomery and Kallenbach, 1997) • Convective rainbands generate potential vorticity (PV). • 3D modeling with sufficiently small grid spacing (Houze et al., 2007; Terwey and Montgomery, 2006; Wang, 2006; Yau et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2005) produces concentric eyewalls in intense hurricanes. • Where are secondary eyewalls unlikely to form?

  13. 1. Introduction: • Formation of a moat • Region of subsidence as a secondary eyewall matures (Dodge et al., 1999; Houze et al., 2007) • Region of intense horizontal strain before and after secondary eyewall formation (Shapiro and Montgomery, 1993; Kossin et al., 2000; R. et al., 2006) • Which processes dominate in the moat region before and after secondary eyewall formation? The “moat”

  14. 2. Rapid filamentation zones From a materially conserved tracer q in a horizontal, 2D plane,we can form a tracer gradient equation: where V2 is the velocity gradient tensor: and where Assuming V2 is constant, we obtain the Okubo-Weiss criterion (which is the frequency associated with the solution of the tracer gradient equation):

  15. 2. Rapid filamentation zones Rather than assuming a constant velocity gradient tensor, we obtain a second order equation describing tracer gradient growth, which yields more accurate solutions (Hua and Klein, 1998): Which has the following eigenvalues:

  16. 2. Rapid filamentation zones Okubo-Weiss and Hua-Klein eigenvalues are frequencies associated with either oscillatory or exponential decay/growth. An e-folding type timescale can be defined – the filamentation time – for the real part li (i.e., where there is exponential growth rates): Given typical convective overturning timescales of about 30 min, we define a rapid filamentation zone as a region where: We hypothesize that deep convection is strongly deformed and susceptible to enhanced entrainment and subsequent suppression in such regions.

  17. 2. Rapid filamentation zones Gaussian vortices Okubo-Weiss tfil Hua-Klein tfil

  18. 2. Rapid filamentation zones Rel Vorticity Hua-Klein tfil Pseudo-spectral numerical integration of: < 2.5 min 2.5 -7.5 min 7.5 - 15 min Initial Conditions: 15 - 30 min • Random vorticity elements • between 20 – 40 km. • Random vorticity has 1/10 • magnitude of central vortex. • Positive bias to random • vorticity field. > 30 min Infinity min Model config: • 600 x 600 km • 1024 x 1024 collocation • points => 1.76 km res. • - n = 20 m2 s-1

  19. 3. Moat observations • Dropsondes and aircraft data from Frances (2004) and Rita (2005). • NOAA P3s give 1 s T, Td, p, u, v. • T, Td corrected for instrument wetting (Zipser et al., 1981). • GPS dropsondes – p, T, R.H., u, and v at 5 m intervals (2 Hz.) (QC’d on ASPEN or Editsonde (HRD)). • Data tranformed into cylindrical coordinates – Willoughby and Chelmow (1982) center-finding technique (~3 km error). • Data composites defined as:

  20. 3. Moat observations Hurricane Frances (2004) Best track data (NHC) Figure taken from Beven (2004/NHC)

  21. 3. Moat observations • Atlantic Hurricane Frances on • 30 August 2004. • NOAA P3 data collected in • this storm. • & (b) 1804 – 1822 UTC • (c) & (d) 1924 – 1943 UTC • (e) & (f) 2108 – 2126 UTC vq T Td

  22. 3. Moat observations Atlantic Hurricane Frances on 30 August 2004. Composite profile: - 2 dr = 6 km on a Dr = 250 m grid. - 700 hPa flight-level data only (1804 – 1822 UTC; 2108 – 2126 UTC). TOP: Blue (Individual Flight-level Tangential Wind) Red (Filamentation Time (min)) Black Composite) BOTTOM: Red (Temperature) Green (Dew Point) Black (Composites) vq tfil T Td

  23. 3. Moat observations Moat Dropsonde data points shown to the right. The moat of Frances had eye-like dropsondes in the moat. Low-level instability was marginal. Eyewall Eyewall r = 24 km r = 29 km r = 32 km Td T Td T Tparcel Td T

  24. 3. Moat observations Hurricane Rita (2005) Best track data (NHC) Figure taken from Knapp et al. (2005/NHC)

  25. 3. Moat observations Rita 21 September 2005 (N43) dBZ 216 km 52 50 47 45 42 40 1459 UTC 1510 UTC 1517 UTC 1936 UTC 37 35 Rita 22 September 2005 (N43) 32 30 27 25 22 216 km 20 1457 UTC 1612 UTC 1752 UTC 1911 UTC Radar imagery from HRD/RAINEX

  26. 3. Moat observations Rita 21 September 2005 (N43) vq T 640 hPa 1855 – 1956 UTC tfil Td T vq 700 hPa 1507 – 1616 UTC Td tfil

  27. 3. Moat observations Rita 21 September 2005 Composite Dropsondes Composite profile: - 2 dp = 10 hPa on a Dp = 0.5 hPa grid. - N43/NRL drops - (a) 25 km < r < 55 km - (b) 55 km < r < 85 km - Std Dev ~ 0.9oC Eyewall Td T Tparcel Td T

  28. 3. Moat observations Rita 22 September 2005 Flight-level Composites vq T 700 hPa 1437 – 2057 UTC Td tfil vq T 2.1 km 1705 – 1735 UTC Td tfil vq T 1.5 km 1754 – 2213 UTC Td tfil

  29. 3. Moat observations Composite profile: - 2 dp = 10 hPa on a Dp = 0.5 hPa grid. - N43/N42/NRL drops - 25 km < r < 40 km Moat Eyewall Eyewall 16 – 19 UTC 19 - 22 UTC Eye-like soundings consistent with Houze et al. (2007; Science) Td T Td T Tparcel

  30. 3. Moat observations:Balanced vortex suggestions • 5-region approximation to the Sawyer-Eliassen equation (Similar approaches are used in Schubert et al., 2007; Shapiro and Willoughby, 1982; Schubert and Hack, 1982). This model diagnoses the secondary circulation for a given tangential wind profile and prescribed diabatic heating. • Consider axisymmetric, quasi-static, stratified, compressible, and inviscid motions on an f-plane. • Assume a barotropic vortex. Vorticity: Heating: Q2 Q1 r1 r3 r4 r1 r3 r4 r r2 r r2

  31. vq w (analytical) 3. Moat observations:Balanced vortex suggestions Results: Assume the following: dT/dt (analytical) T obs. Td obs.

  32. 3. Moat observations:Balanced vortex suggestions • A look at mass subsidence in the moat during an idealized eyewall replacement cycle r3 r4 Frances

  33. 4. Idealized cloud model results • RAMS – 3D, compressible, nonhydrostatic, one-moment microphysics. • f-plane, Dx= Dy= 500 m over 125 x 125 km.Dz= 160 m near surface, stretching to a maximum spacing of 500 m aloft. 25 km depth. • Radiation neglected • Lower boundary is free slip. • Rayleigh friction layer at rigid lid and Klemp-Wilhelmson (1978) lateral boundary conditions. • Smagorinsky (1963) diffusion. • Convection initiated with a 2 K bubble.

  34. 4. Idealized cloud model results • Sounding constructed using several outer-core dropsondes from Hurricane Isabel (2003) and carefully blended with a proximity sounding (13 Sep 2003) (courtesy W. Terwey and M. Bell) • CAPE = 2067 J/kg and CIN = 1 J/kg. • Background wind: • vz = 0, 5, 10, and 20 m s-1 per 15 km and vx = 0, -2, -4, and -6 x 10-4 s-1. All cases are initialized in geostrophic and hydrostatic balance. • The initial absolute vorticity, vx+ f, is always equal to 1 x 10-4 s-1.

  35. 4. Idealized cloud model results vz = 20 m s-1 (15 km)-1 vx = 0 x 10-4 s-1

  36. 4. Idealized cloud model results vz = 0 m s-1 (15 km)-1 vx = -4 x 10-4 s-1

  37. 4. Idealized cloud model results vz = 0 m s-1 (15 km)-1 vx = -6 x 10-4 s-1

  38. 4. Idealized cloud model results • Practical rapid filamentation occurs for vx = -6 x 10-4 s-1 (exp. v00h6)

  39. Exp. v00h6 z = 1.25 km at 0.6 h Vertical Motion (m s-1) z = 1.25 km at 0.6 h z = 1.25 km at 0.6 h z = 1.25 km at 0.6 h Pert. Relative Vorticity (x 10-4 s-1) z = 1.25 km at 0.6 h z = 1.25 km at 0.6 h z = 0.08 km at 0.6 h Pert. Relative Vorticity (x 10-4 s-1) z = 1.25 km at 0.6 h z = 1.25 km at 0.6 h 3 m s-1

  40. 4. Idealized cloud model results Exp. v00h4 x 10-4 s-1 x 10-2 m s-2 x 10-2 m s-2 z=1.25 km First column - w: Vertical velocity (contoured) z: Pert. vert. vorticity (shaded) Second column – Dynamic perturbation pressure gradient Third column – Sum of buoyancy and buoyant perturbation gradient o

  41. 4. Idealized cloud model results vz = 20 m s-1 (15 km)-1 vx = -2 x 10-4 s-1

  42. 4. Idealized cloud model results Exp. v20h4 Exp. v20h2 x 10-4 s-1 x 10-2 m s-2 x 10-2 m s-2 x 10-4 s-1 x 10-2 m s-2 x 10-2 m s-2 z=1.25 km

  43. 4. Idealized cloud model resultsSummary of cloud dynamics Vertical Shear Horizontal Shear z z v - + - + L L - + y y Convergence of za>0 Convergence of za>0 x x v Dynamic pressure perturbations/ buoyant forcing important in forcing primary updrafts. Dynamic pressure perturbations also force an upright updraft. Buoyant forcing along edges of cold pool are important in forcing primary updrafts.

  44. 4. Idealized cloud model resultsSensitivity Experiments “Unstable” – “Control” “Moist” – “Control”

  45. 5. Conclusions • Rapid filamentation zones (RFZs), defined from local kinematics, are regions where the filamentation time is smaller than the typical timescale of convective overturning. • Observations suggest moats coincide with RFZs. Moats contain marginal thermodynamic conditions for the existence of deep, moist convection. • As a moat forms, balanced theory suggests eye-like downward mass fluxes can take place in the moat early in an eyewall replacement cycle. • Rapid filamentation is most likely relevant prior to mature moat formation.

  46. 5. Conclusions • Cloud simulations suggest that, in relatively marginal thermodynamic conditions, adverse filamentation occurs for sufficiently strong horizontal shear. • We’ve uncovered new dynamics of horizontally sheared convection. Future work should include low-level inflow. • PV wakes left behind sheared convection could be important in the genesis of secondary eyewalls (e.g., Franklin et al., 2006). • Slight changes in the thermo has profound impacts on sheared convection. A refined definition of rapid filamentation should include the instability.

  47. Questions? 16 September 2006 Montrose, SD Remnants of Ioke?

More Related