the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Transient Anticyclonic Eddies and Their Relationship to Atmospheric Block Persistence
Charlie C. Suitters
Oscar Martínez-Alvarado
Kevin I. Hodges
Reinhard K. H. Schiemann
Duncan Ackerley
Abstract. Atmospheric blocking is a circulation pattern that describes the presence of large-scale, persistent anticyclones, which have the potential to bring severe impacts at the surface. However, the dynamical behaviour of blocks is still not fully understood. For example, the factors that determine the persistence of blocking events are not clear. In this study, the relationship between blocks and smaller-scale transient anticyclonic eddies is examined, with a particular focus on the impact of transients on the persistence of a block. Analysis is performed in two areas: the Euro-Atlantic and North Pacific, which are locations with both high blocking frequency and potential for severe impacts. Geopotential height anomalies at 500 hPa are used to identify blocking events and the anticyclonic transient eddies. This allows for a Eulerian definition of blocking, as well as a Lagrangian perspective on the eddies. It is found that anticyclonic eddies experience a northward acceleration prior to entering a block, which is indicative of ridge-building ahead of a block, but could also potentially provide evidence for the previously-proposed Selective Absorption Mechanism for block maintenance. A general pattern is found whereby longer blocks interact with more anticyclonic transients than less persistent blocks at all times of year. This effect is strongest in winter and weakest in summer, which agrees with the fact that blocks are most persistent in winter and least persistent in summer. However, the strength of the anticyclonic eddy, measured by its maximum 500 hPa geopotential height anomaly, that interacts with a block generally has very little bearing on the persistence of a block, aside from a few cases.
Charlie C. Suitters et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CC1: 'Comment on wcd-2022-59', Dehai Luo, 03 Dec 2022
Some comments on “Transient anticyclonic eddies and Their relationship to Atmospheric blocking persistence“ by Suiters et al.
More recently, I have read a manuscript “Transient anticyclonic eddies and their relationship to atmospheric blocking persistence”. I found that this manuscript is interesting, but this study is a phenomenological one, which cannot identify the causal relationship between transient anticyclonic eddies and blocking persistence. Because this study is in my research domain and the relation between blocking and transient synoptic eddies has been examined in my group before many years, here I give some comments on this manuscript to help the authors understand how transient eddies reinforce and maintain blocking and how intensified blocking deforms transient eddies.
Please see the attached file for its detailed review
-
RC1: 'Comment on wcd-2022-59', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Jan 2023
This work focuses on the contribution of anticyclonic eddies to the maintenance of blocks, more particularly it investigates the relationship between anticyclonic eddies strength, zonal and meridional velocities, and the blocking persistence. Blocking events occurring in two areas of the Northern Hemisphere (the North Pacific and the North Atlantic/western Europe area) and during four seasons are studied here. The method used here to detect both the anticyclonic eddies and blocks is interesting. The science is sound; the article is well written and the figures and tables are clear. I have two major comments on this paper and a few minor comments.
Major comments:
- First, this paper is quite long for the number of results discussed here. I wonder if the authors could remove or shorten some sections:
- Section 4.1 is a bit long as the result are very similar to previous studies. Figure 4 could be moved to the appendix and summarized in a couple of sentences.
- Section 4.2 could also be summarized and merged with section 5.1. In addition, the values shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3 could be directly added on the figures to shorten the paper.
- The curves shown in Figure 7 could be directly added on Figures 8 and 9 to remove Figure 7. Also, Figure 9 could be move to the Appendix as it does not show strong differences between the shortest 25% and longest 25% of blocks.
- Second, the paper is quite descriptive and does not address the dynamics behind the relationship between anticyclonic eddies and blocks as could be thought after reading the introduction (e.g. lines 57-60 or lines 78-81) or the title. It does not show how these anticyclonic eddies dynamically contribute to the persistence of blocks. The space gained by summarizing some sections as suggested above could be used by the authors to develop more the dynamics behind this relation.
Minor comments:
- Please, give more details in the Appendix on how the anticyclonic eddies are tracked.
- Line 112: Do you mean the monthly deviation from the zonal mean Z500?
- Figure 3: Could you plot the continent lines in a distinct colour to separate it better from the geopotential anomaly contours. In addition, maybe you should plot only the “ongoing” tracks to make the figure cleared?
- Figure 5: why do you show the blocks lasting less than 5 days?
- Figure 5: Could you add in the figure the number of blocks in each area and season (as shown in Table 1)?
- Lines 220-230: Could you add the values of the different percentiles in Figure 5?
- Line 252-256: could you add the number of eddies in parenthesis as done in lines 250-251?
- Figure 6: the colour of the dot plotted behind is not visible. Could the authors plot the relation between persistence and number of eddies in another panel? Or plot in another way the number of anticyclonic eddies
- Line 271: what is the duration of the anticyclonic eddies?
- In Figures 7, 8 and 9, there is no separation between the through and absorbed eddies?
- Figures 8 and 9: could you plot the shortest 50% of blocks and the longest 50% in a distinct colour to better differentiate the standard error.
- Line 335: replace “Selective Absorption Mechanism” by “SAM”.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2022-59-RC1 - First, this paper is quite long for the number of results discussed here. I wonder if the authors could remove or shorten some sections:
-
RC2: 'Comment on wcd-2022-59', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Jan 2023
Review of "Transient Anticyclonic Eddies and Their Relationship to Atmospheric Block Persistence" by Charlie C. Suitters, and coauthors
The authors investigate the relationship between block persistence and synoptic-eddy (especially anticyclonic anticyclone) characteristics based on the traditional eddy-feedback mechanism originally proposed by the famous paper Shutts (1983). The authors applied a cyclone-tracking method to the synoptic anticyclones that interact withãblocking, and discovered that i) longer blocks interact with more anticyclonic transients than less persistent blocks and ii) there is little relationship between the strength of the anticyclonic eddy and the blocking longevity except winter. In the manuscript, the authors comprehensively reviewed the blocking maintenance mechanism based on the eddy feedback mechanism and the results obtained here support importance of the eddy feedback mechanism. Also, the authors quantify the eddy feedback mechanism from both the Eulerian and Lagrangian perspectives. This paper include a lot of novel topics on the blocking mechanism and can develop the traditional eddy feedback mechanism from 1980s.
The reviewer evaluates that the manuscript is suitable for the journal Weather and Climate Dynamics that has the scopes on midlatitude dynamics, in which blocking and synoptic eddies are essential, though I also have a major comment about the correspondence between the anticyclone tracking used in this study and the Lagrangian tracking ways commonly used in previous studies. Then, the reviewer would suggest the paper is in a category of major revision. Specific comments are below.Major comments
The authors define the anticyclonic eddies as positive anomaly from the zonal and temporal means, which seems different from typical cyclone tracking and particle tracking methods used in many studies. I think although the Lagrangian tracking used in this study is valuable to understand the eddy characteristics, but also think that many Lagrangian tracking schemes focus on the absolute (raw) fields (values) rather than their anomaly fields. Yamazaki and Itoh (2013a) mention in their paper that (raw) low PV supply is important for the blocking maintenance, and their Lagrangian tracking was done by raw (unfiltered) wind fields. More recent papers by Pfahl et al. (2015) or Yamamoto et al. (2021) which adopted the Lagrangian analysis into the blocking formation and maintenance mechanisms monitored (raw) PV values of tracked air parcels. Here, my question is that if you define the eddy intensity (strength) as a raw value (say, PV) in Figs. 7-9, does your conclusion that "there is a less clear relationship between block persistence and the strength of the AC eddies that it absorbs" change? For example, could you trace the mean column-averaged value of raw PV of 150-500 hPa (Schwierz et al. 2004) at or within an AC eddy? In addition, I think that Z anomaly as the eddy strength can be changed if latitudinal position of the eddy varies. In such perspective, I am wondering how are the track distributions of ACs that interact with blocking? To check the distributions and/or the statistics of the AC tracks may be helpful on your conclusion. The results by Yamamoto et al. (2021) might be useful.Other specific comments
1. Related to the major comment, could you show the trajectory statistics of synoptic cyclones? Since sometimes a Berggren-type blocking where there are several isolated anticyclonic or cyclonic vortices within the blocking region (e.g., Luo 2005) can exist.
2. How do you obtain "u" and "v" in Figs. 7 and 8? If those values are Eulerian-based (raw) winds which are the interpolated wind values at the AC centers from the ERA5 gridded data, to what extent are those values different from the Lagrangian speeds of ACs obtained by your tracking method?
3. Several previous papers may be useful for the introduction part:
- Zhu et al. (2007) investigated the statistics between the synoptic cyclone activity and the Aleutian low intensity.
- Okajima et al. (2021) proposed a new detection method for anticyclonic and cyclonic eddies based on curvature.
- Shi and Nakamura (2021) proposed a blocking detection index based on the Rossby wave breaking.Minor comments:
- L193-194: Why are the climatological frequencies different (16% vs 30%)?
- The term "standard error": Is it "standard deviation"?
- L325 and L335: the abbreviation "SAM" is used before "Selective Absorption Mechanism"
Refereces:
- Luo, D., 2005: A Barotropic Envelope Rossby Soliton Model for Block–Eddy Interaction. Part I: Effect of Topography, J. Atmos. Sci., https://doi.org/10.1175/1186.1.
- Okajima, S., et al, 2021: Cyclonic and anticyclonic contributions to atmospheric energetics, Sci. Rep., https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92548-7.
- Shi, N., and H. Nakamura, 2021: A New Detection Scheme of Wave-Breaking Events with Blocking Flow Configurations, J. Clim., DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0037.1.
- Yamamoto, A., et al., 2021: Oceanic moisture sources contributing to wintertime Euro-Atlantic blocking, Weather Clim. Dynam., https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-819-2021.
- Zhu. X., et al., 2007: A Synoptic Analysis of the Interannual Variability of Winter Cyclone Activity in the Aleutian Low Region, J. Clim., DOI: 10.1175/JCLI4077.1.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2022-59-RC2 - AC1: 'Comment on wcd-2022-59', Charlie Suitters, 27 Feb 2023
Charlie C. Suitters et al.
Charlie C. Suitters et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
436 | 146 | 15 | 597 | 5 | 2 |
- HTML: 436
- PDF: 146
- XML: 15
- Total: 597
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1