Filters

2006 - 20072

More filters

20192
Reset filters

Settings

DDC: 530 × Subject: wind field ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The atmospheric background situation in northern Scandinavia during January/February 2003 in the context of the MaCWAVE campaign
    (München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2006) Blum, U.; Baumgarten, G.; Schöch, A.; Kirkwood, S.; Naujokat, B.; Fricke, K.H.
    The atmosphere background wind field controls the propagation of gravity waves from the troposphere through the stratosphere into the mesosphere. During January 2003 the MaCWAVE campaign took place at Esrange, with the purpose of observing vertically ascending waves induced by orography. Temperature data from the U. Bonn lidar at Esrange (68° N/21° E) and the ALOMAR RMR lidar (69° N/16° E), wind data from Esrange MST radar ESRAD, as well as wind data from the ECMWF T106 model, are used to analyse the atmospheric background situation and its effect on mountain wave propagation during January/February 2003. Critical levels lead to dissipation of vertically ascending waves, thus mountain waves are not observable above those levels. In the first half of January a minor as well as a major stratospheric warming dominated the meteorological background situation. These warmings led to a wind reversal, thus to critical level filtering and consequently prevented gravity waves from propagating to high altitudes. While the troposphere was not transparent for stationary gravity waves most of the time, there was a period of eight days following the major warming with a transparent stratosphere, with conditions allowing gravity waves generated in the lower troposphere to penetrate the stratosphere up to the stratopause and sometimes even into the lower mesosphere. In the middle of February a minor stratospheric warming occurred, which again led to critical levels such that gravity waves were not able to ascend above the middle stratosphere. Due to the unfavourable troposphere and lower stratosphere conditions for gravity wave excitation and propagation, the source of the observed waves in the middle atmosphere is probably different from orography.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Long-term variations of the mesospheric wind field at mid-latitudes
    (München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2007) Keuer, D.; Hoffmann, P.; Singer, W.; Bremer, J.
    Continuous MF radar observations at the station Juliusruh (54.6° N; 13.4° E) have been analysed for the time interval between 1990 and 2005, to obtain information about solar activity-induced variations, as well as long-term trends in the mesospheric wind field. Using monthly median values of the zonal and the meridional prevailing wind components, as well as of the amplitude of the semidiurnal tide, regression analyses have been carried out with a dependence on solar activity and time. The solar activity causes a significant amplification of the zonal winds during summer (increasing easterly winds) and winter (increasing westerly winds). The meridional wind component is positively correlated with the solar activity during summer but during winter the correlation is very small and non significant. Also, the solar influence upon the amplitude of the semidiurnal tidal component is relatively small (in dependence on height partly positive and partly negative) and mostly non-significant. The derived trends in the zonal wind component during summer are below an altitude of about 83 km negative and above this height positive. During the winter months the trends are nearly opposite compared with the trends in summer (transition height near 86 km). The trends in the meridional wind components are below about 85 km positive in summer (significant) and near zero (nonsignificant) in winter; above this height during both seasons negative trends have been detected. The trends in the semidiurnal tidal amplitude are at all heights positive, but only partly significant. The detected trends and solar cycle dependencies are compared with other experimental results and model calculations. There is no full agreement between the different results, probably caused by different measuring techniques and evaluation methods used. Also, different heights and observation periods investigated may contribute to the detected differences.