Hurricane Edouard (2014) Just After Peak Intensity
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Received: 4 April 2018 Revised: 27 October 2018 Accepted: 29 October 2018 Published on: 15 January 2019 DOI: 10.1002/qj.3423 RESEARCH ARTICLE Azimuthally averaged structure of Hurricane Edouard (2014) just after peak intensity Roger K. Smith1 Michael T. Montgomery2 Scott A. Braun3 1Meteorological Institute, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany Analyses of dropsonde data collected in Hurricane Edouard (2014) just after its 2Department of Meteorology, Naval Postgraduate mature stage are presented. These data have unprecedentedly high spatial reso- School, Monterey, California lution, based on 87 dropsondes released by the unmanned NASA Global Hawk 3 Mesoscale Atmospheric Processes Laboratory, from an altitude of 18 km during the Hurricane and Severe Storm Sentinel (HS3) NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland field campaign. Attempts are made to relate the analyses of the data to theories of Correspondence tropical cyclone structure and behaviour. The tangential wind and thermal fields Roger K. Smith, Meteorological Institute, Ludwig show the classical structure of a warm-core vortex, in this case with a secondary Maximilian University of Munich, Theresienstr. eyewall feature. Additionally, the equivalent potential temperature field (e)shows 37, 80333 Munich, Germany. the expected structure with a mid-tropospheric minimum at outer radii and contours Email: [email protected] of e flaring upwards and outwards at inner radii. With some imagination, these Funding information contours are roughly congruent to the surfaces of absolute angular momentum. Office of Naval Research Global; N62909-15-1-N021, NSF; AGS-1313948, NOAA However, details of the analysed radial velocity field are quite sensitive to the way HFIP; N0017315WR00048, NASA (HS3); in which the sonde data are partitioned to produce an azimuthal average. This sen- NNG11PK021, ONR; N0001417WX00336, sitivity is compounded by an apparent limitation of the assumed steadiness of the storm over the period of data collection. KEYWORDS hurricane, observed structure and behaviour, tropical cyclone 1 INTRODUCTION showing the location of each dropsonde can be viewed in fig. 1 of Zawislak et al. (2016), while a description of the storm dur- In the past there have been few measurements of hurricane ing its lifetime is given by Stewart (2014). Brief descriptions structure through the depth of the troposphere, the reason of the storm and the missions flown were given by Braun et al. being that most aircraft reconnaissance flights have not been (2016) and Munsell et al. (2018). able to sample the upper troposphere. Some classic obser- The structure of Edouard was particularly well sampled vational studies are those of La Seur and Hawkins (1963), on 16 and 17 September when it was near its peak inten- Hawkins and Rubsam (1968) and Hawkins and Imbembo sity. On this mission, which lasted about 23 hr, 87 dropsondes (1976), to whom in situ data from an instrumented high-flying were deployed into the hurricane from a height of 18 km. jet aircraft were available. The situation changed recently The purpose of this paper is to present azimuthally averaged 1 through the deployment of the NASA Global Hawk, an radius–height cross sections of various quantities obtained unmanned aircraft system capable of releasing dropsondes in from analyses of these unique data and to compare these rapid succession from the lower stratosphere. During NASA’s analyses with theories of tropical cyclone behaviour. Hurricane and Severe Storm Sentinel (HS3) field campaign in 2014 (Braun et al., 2016), comparatively high temporal and spatial resolution dropsonde observations were made over the 2 DATA Atlantic Ocean in Hurricane Edouard during four missions between September 11, 2014 and September 19, 2014. A map The 87 dropsondes were released into Edouard between 1506 UTC on September 16, 2014 and 0828 UTC on September 1National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 17, 2014, during which time the storm moved from about Q J R Meteorol Soc. 2019;145:211–216. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/qj © 2018 Royal Meteorological Society 211 212 MONTGOMERY ET AL. (a) v, M (b) dT 16 16 4 12 30 12 2 8 15 8 0 z (km) –2 4 0 4 –4 0 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 radius (km) radius (km) (c)u (d) θ , M 16 16 e 6 12 12 350 3 8 0 8 340 z (km) z (km) –3 z (km) 4 4 330 –6 0 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 radius (km) radius (km) (e)RH (f) θ , M 16 3 e 12 90 350 2 8 70 340 z (km) z (km) 1 4 50 330 0 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 radius (km) radius (km) FIGURE 1 Radius–height cross sections of selected fields derived from the dropsonde data: (a) tangential velocity component, v, contour interval 5 m/s, shading indicated on the side bar in m/s, and absolute angular momentum, M, black lines, contour interval 5 × 105 m2/s; (b) temperature perturbation, dT, contour interval 2 K (positive values), 1 K (negative values), shading indicated on the side bar in K; (c) radial velocity component, u, contour interval 3 m/s, shading indicated on the side bar in m/s; (d) equivalent potential temperature, e contour interval 10 K, shading indicated on the side bar in K, and absolute angular momentum, black lines, contours as in (a); (e) relative humidity, RH, contour interval 10%, shading indicated on the side bar in %; (f) a zoomed-in version of (d) at heights below 3 km [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] 32◦Nto35◦N (Stewart, 2014, table 1). The distribution of sonde time is the time of the actual measurement at a particu- the dropsondes is shown in Abarca et al. (2016, fig. 2a). The lar level. Using these adjusted positions relative to the centre, sonde data were post-processed by the National Center for radial and tangential velocities were calculated with the storm Atmospheric Research (see Hoch et al. (2017)) using their motion removed to obtain storm-relative flow. This analysis Atmospheric Sounding Processing Environment (ASPEN) was done for all dropsondes during the flight. Bins were then software (Young et al., 2016). The analyses of the dropson- created for averaging once all the derived fields, including des include a dry bias correction in the upper troposphere. radial and tangential velocity, were calculated. The analysis of these sondes is described briefly below. The midpoints of the bins were at radial locations 10, 30, 50, 70, 100, 150, 210, 270, 330, 400, 480 and 560 km from the centre.2 The number of soundings were distributed within 2.1 Computation of azimuthal averages each bin as follows: 0–20 km radius (11 sondes), 20–40 km To calculate the azimuthal averages, the dropsonde data were (9), 40–60 km (6), 60–80 km (7), 80–120 km (10), 120–180 first interpolated to 181 pressure levels with a spacing of 5 km (0), 180–240 km (9), 240–300 km (8), 300–360 km mb. The storm centre positions over the time period of the (8), 360–440 km (4), 440–520 km (8) and 520–600 (7). No flight were used to determine the location of each dropsonde additional smoothing was applied to the individual dropsonde relative to the evolving centre position. Best track data from the National Hurricane Center were used to estimate the mean 2The dataset is the same as that used by Abarca et al. (2016). However, the storm motion over the flight period. The positions of the drop- subdivision into bins is rather different. Even so, the tangential wind field sonde data were shifted to a reference time of 0000 UTC on in fig. 3a of Abarca et al. is very similar to that shown in Figure 1a here. The pressure field is rather smooth and should be similar between the two September 17 using the storm motion and the time difference analyses. Indeed, Abarca et al. did note that “the data were robust to different between the sonde time and this reference time. Here, the bin-length choices.” MONTGOMERY ET AL. 213 data. If, when computing the azimuthal mean, some values troposphere. The decrease in the tangential velocity compo- were missing from individual soundings, they were simply not nent with height corresponds through balance considerations included in the calculation of the mean. Because there were with the warm-core structure (see Figure 1b). no dropsonde data at radii between 120 and 200 km and there- There is evidence of a weak inner tangential wind max- fore in the radial bin 120–180 km, the azimuthal values for imum near 40 km and an outer maximum at a radius of a radius of 150 km were determined by linear interpolation about 100 km. The formation of the outer wind maximum between the bin midpoints at 100 and 210 km. was the focus of a separate study by Abarca et al. (2016). The upper-level anticyclone begins at a radius of about 80 km, while the strength of the anticyclone increases with 2.2 Steady-state composite data radius and the anticyclonic circulation deepens with increas- Although the storm was at peak intensity near the start of ing radius. The maximum anticyclonic flow is found at an the measurements, the intensity decreased by about 10 m/s altitude between 14 and 15 km at a radius of 500 km and during the measurement period (see fig. 1 of Abarca et al. would appear to be increasing beyond this radius. 2016, and the accompanying discussion of the various fac- Figure 1a also shows the absolute angular momentum (or tors in this decay).