In this study, ground-based observations of equinox diurnal tide wind fields from the first CAWSES Global Tidal Campaign are compared with results from five commonly used models, in order to identify systematic differences. WACCM3 and Extended CMAM are both self-consistent general circulation models, which resolve general climatological features, while TIME-GCM can be forced to approximate specific conditions using reanalysis fields. GSWM is a linear mechanistic model; while GEWM is an empirical model derived from ground-based and satellite observations. The models resolve diurnal tides consistent in latitudinal structure with observations, dominated by the upward propagating (1,1) mode. There is disagreement in the magnitudes of the tidal amplitudes and vertical wavelengths, while differences in longitudinal tidal variability indicate differences in the nonmigrating tides in the models. These points suggest inconsistencies in model forcing, dissipation, and background winds that must be examined as part of a coordinated effort from the modeling community.
|Number of pages||12|
|Journal||Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics|
|Publication status||Published - Apr 1 2012|
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Atmospheric Science
- Space and Planetary Science