Cited by 90Meteorological Phenomena and SimulationsClimate variability and modelsFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows

Regime Transitions in Near-Surface Temperature Inversions: A Conceptual Model

Open access
Van de Wiel, Bas J. H., Vignon, Etienne, Baas, Peter, van Hooijdonk, Ivo G. S., van der Linden, Steven J. A., Antoon van Hooft, J., Bosveld, Fred C., de Roode, Stefan R. +2 more·2017·Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences

Abstract

Abstract A conceptual model is used in combination with observational analysis to understand regime transitions of near-surface temperature inversions at night as well as in Arctic conditions. The model combines a surface energy budget with a bulk parameterization for turbulent heat transport. Energy fluxes or feedbacks due to soil and radiative heat transfer are accounted for by a “lumped parameter closure,” which represents the “coupling strength” of the system. Observations from Cabauw, Netherlands, and Dome C, Antarctica, are analyzed. As expected, inversions are weak for strong winds, whereas large inversions are found under weak-wind conditions. However, a sharp transition is found between those regimes, as it occurs within a narrow wind range. This results in a typical S-shaped dependency. The conceptual model explains why this characteristic must be a robust feature. Differences between the Cabauw and Dome C cases are explained from differences in coupling strength (being weaker in the Antarctic). For comparison, a realistic column model is run. As findings are similar to the simple model and the observational analysis, it suggests generality of the results. Theoretical analysis reveals that, in the transition zone near the critical wind speed, the response time of the system to perturbations becomes large. As resilience to perturbations becomes weaker, it may explain why, within this wind regime, an increase of scatter is found. Finally, the so-called heat flux duality paradox is analyzed. It is explained why numerical simulations with prescribed surface fluxes show a dynamical response different from more realistic surface-coupled systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1175/jas-d-16-0180.1

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Poulos, G. S., and Coauthors, 2002: CASES-99: A comprehensive investigation of the stable nocturnal boundary layer. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 83, 555-581, doi:10.1175/1520-0477(2002)083,0555: CACIOT.2.3.CO;2. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van de Wiel, B. J. H., Vignon, E., Baas, P., van Hooijdonk, I. G. S., van der Linden, S. J. A., Antoon van Hooft, J., Bosveld, F. C., de Roode, S. R., Moene, A. F., & Genthon, C.
Affiliations
  • Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Department of Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
  • CNRS/Université Grenoble Alpes, Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l’Environnement, Grenoble, France
  • Delft University of Technology (NL)
  • Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, and J.M. Burgerscentrum, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands
  • Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (NL)
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Venue
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Published
2017-03-20
Volume
74
Issue
4
Pages
1057-1073
ISSN
  • 0022-4928 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0469
OpenAlex
W2572079327
Cited by
90
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6
FWCI
5.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • European Research Council (648666)
  • NWO Dutch National Science Foundation (82301010)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Fluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Keywords
tipping points, surface energy balance, turbulent heat transfer, bulk parameterization, coupling strength, wind speed dependence, Arctic boundary layer, Cabauw, Dome C, system resilience, column model

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review