the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Process-Oriented Evaluation of Stationary Rossby Waves and Their Impact on Surface Air Temperature Extremes in Dynamical Downscaling over North America
Abstract. Stationary Rossby waves are a crucial component of the general circulation and play a significant role in regional water and energy cycles, as well as in extreme events. However, process-oriented evaluation for stationary Rossby waves is rarely performed for dynamical downscaling simulations. To close this gap, we evaluate three classes of dynamical downscaling approaches, with a focus on stationary Rossby waves and their impact on surface air temperature over North America during Northern Hemisphere summer. The three classes of models differ in the way large-scale forcing is provided: a limited-area model (LAM) constrained only by lateral boundary conditions, represented by RegCM4 from the North American branch of the Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment (NA-CORDEX), a LAM with spectral nudging to maintain consistency in large-scale dynamics with the forcing data, represented by the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model simulation in NA-CORDEX, and a global variable-resolution model with smoothly varying grid spacings, represented by the Community Atmosphere Model version 5.4, with the Model for Prediction Across Scales (MPAS) as its dynamical core (CAM-MPAS). With no constraints on the atmospheric dynamics, CAM-MPAS exhibits several mean biases in the upper-level circulations over the Pacific Coast region: a weaker subtropical jet, a northward-shifted mid-latitude jet, and an overestimated southerly flow. With the lateral boundary constraint alone, RegCM4 also exhibits weaker jets and overestimated southerly winds off the West Coast. Rossby ray theory reveals that those wind biases direct incoming Rossby waves northward. The erroneously routed Rossby waves distort the relationship between the accumulation of wave activity over the US West Coast and surface temperature anomalies over the Southern Great Plains, which emerges approximately four days after the convergence of wave activity flux in the ERA-Interim reanalysis. Furthermore, the response of heatwaves to the extreme wave activity flux is not reproduced by the two models, a serious drawback as a dynamical downscaling framework is expected to connect large-scale forcing to local-scale phenomena. The WRF model employing spectral nudging is largely free from the aforementioned problems. A pair of sensitivity simulations suggests that spectral nudging is the key to improving the dynamics of stationary Rossby waves and their impact on surface air temperature. Our results also demonstrate the effectiveness of Rossby wave diagnostics that allow for realistic background flows for assessing the credibility of dynamical downscaling over North America, where incoming Rossby waves propagate through complex circulation patterns before traveling across the continent. Evaluating such process chains — from large-scale Rossby waves to local-scale extreme events — requires accounting for the region's unique dynamical features.
- Preprint
(43102 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5544', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Dec 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Koichi Sakaguchi, 07 Jan 2026
Thank you very much for your time and insightful comments and suggestions. I am very happy to have an expert in this field review our manuscript, and I would like to thank the editor for reaching out to you. We have started going through your comments one by one. I am also excited about how addressing your comments makes the paper more insightful and easier to follow, and also deepens my own understanding of Rossby waves.
Here, I want to quickly reply to / discuss the following specific comments.
"L285: This is not necessarily true. WAF can also be decomposed into different waves."
I will go back to the Takaya and Nakamura papers and others to think about this. I'd also appreciate it if you could share references that decomposed WAF into different waves.
"This result suggests that the frequency of data used in simulation is not the same as the frequency of the data used for verification."
Indeed, that is the case. We will certainly discuss this in the revised manuscript.
"While this part (WAF and heatwaves) is interesting, it would be a better contribution as a standalone study, which will include a more in-depth analysis. Removing this part will make the length of the manuscript more manageable."
I take this point, but also pragmatically, our funding agency's priority is extreme events in the context of societal benefits. Let us think about it.
I also apologize for the numerous typos and inconsistent notation. Thank you for pointing them out.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5544-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Koichi Sakaguchi, 07 Jan 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5544', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Jan 2026
Review of "Process-Oriented Evaluation of Stationary Rossby Waves and Their
Impact on Surface Air Temperature Extremes in Dynamical
Downscaling over North America" by Sakaguchi et al
This paper assess the ability of three different dynamical downscaling methodologies to simulate how quasi-stationary Rossby waves from remote regions lead to regional temperature anomalies and extremes over North America during summer. The three classes of models differ in how the large-scale forcing affects the downscaled domain: a LAM constrained only by lateral boundary conditions, a LAM with spectral nudging to maintain consistency in large-scale dynamics with the forcing data, and a global variable-resolution model with smoothly varying grid spacings. The model with spectral nudging is shown to perform best. The global variable resolution model suffers from time-mean biases in the upper-level circulation, leading to incorrect Rossby wave propagation. The LAM with just lateral boundary constraints also has biases in the large-scale flow and also abrupt changes in winds near the boundaries, again leading to incorrect Rossby wave propagation. Finally, the paper demonstrates that getting correct Rossby wave propagation and accumulation of wave activity is essential for surface temperature anomalies over the Southern Great Plains, an effect only captured with spectral nudging.
This was an interesting and well-written paper, and is well on its way to being suitable for publication. Nonetheless, I think the paper could be improved somewhat as described in my comments below. I should note that my background is in Rossby wave dynamics, and not in downscaling, which certainly is reflected in my comments below.
Major comments
- When the authors compute the WA fluxes, they apply a 25-90 day bandpass filter. Given that they are focused on the development of heat extremes on subweekly timescales, this seems to be too heavy of a filter. Specifically, because of this filter, the causality of the connections inferred in Figure 1 and in Figures 11-14 is somewhat ambiguous, as all of the changes should happen simultaneously if you filter out <25 day variability. Are these results sensitive to this heavy filtering?
2. I have a few questions about how ray-tracing is implemented here as compared to Hoskins and Karoly 1981.
2a. Equation 1: in classic ray tracing in Hoskins and Karoly 1981, k is kept constant. Why in the current formulism is it allowed to be a function of location? How much does k change as the wavetrain propagates away from the source region? More generally, please add a citation that derives equations 1 and 2.
2b. In line 290, the authors say that their implementation of ray tracing gives no information on the wave amplitude. While I can't say whether this is true of their implementation, it is clearly not true of the wave tracing WKB theory from Hoskins and Karoly, as they do diagnose wave amplitude. See their section 5. If the statement in line 290 is a typo and it is possible to infer wave amplitude, this would be an interesting addition to the (very long) paper as it directly relates to heat extremes. If the statement in line 290 is correct, please explain why things are different from HK81.
Minor comments
- The paper refers to these wavetrains propagating into North America on subseasonal timscales as stationary Rossby waves. I think a more suitable terminology is "quasi-stationary Rossby waves", as typically stationary waves are averaged over an entire season (or at least over an entire month). See e.g., White et al
2 . Line 31: the sentence "Since phase speed is inversely proportional to wavenumber, larger waves tend to have greater phase speed." Is an oversimplification, and depending on how it's interpreted incorrect. I suggest deleting
3. Line 342: "creates" isn't precise. It seeds relative vorticity, but doesn't create any vorticity per se.
4. Figure 8-10 demonstrate that there exists a waveguide in the climatological circulation (e.g., a North Pacific subpolar waveguide appears to trap k=6 or k=8). Previous work has diagnosed such a waveguide using K_s (as the authors later note), and while K_s has many suspect assumptions underlying it, it is a more intuitive tool than the more comprehensive but black-boxy tools used in this paper. If my intuition is correct and there is a waveguide formed via a K_s local extrema, I think the paper would be clearer if this was shown explicitly.
5. Figure 8: please fix the panel titles. Also, the caption doesn't appear to accurately reflect the figure contents.
6. Line 433: **to** travel north
7. Equation C11 and C13. The authors jump from \eta_y and \eta_x to q_x and q_y. I assume this is just a notational issue, as the authors are neglecting stretching vorticity/divergence. If yes, please keep the original notation.
White, R. H. and Mareshet Admasu, L.: Temporally and zonally varying atmospheric waveguides – climatologies and connections to quasi-stationary waves, Weather Clim. Dynam., 6, 549–570, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-549-2025, 2025.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5544-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Koichi Sakaguchi, 17 Jan 2026
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript, which is admittedly long.
I feel fortunate to have an expert in Rossby wave dynamics like you review our manuscript, and appreciate your clarifications and corrections of the terminology we used. Most of all, the major comments and minor comment #4 are really good points that we missed. We are gaining additional insights from the analysis to address your question regarding the bandpass filter. We will address them in the revised version.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5544-AC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 183 | 141 | 24 | 348 | 17 | 19 |
- HTML: 183
- PDF: 141
- XML: 24
- Total: 348
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The study proposes a novel framework for evaluation of the source of mean biases in surface air temperature affecting some dynamical downscaling approaches. The framework is based on process-level evaluation of stationary Rossby waves. The evaluation framework consists of a ray-tracing method which allows for a 2D basic state and the wave activity flux along with its divergence. The diagnostics are applied to simulations produced by two limited area models (RegCM4, WRF) and to a global variable-resolution model (CAM-MPAS). Evaluation of Rossby waves propagation shows that treatment of lateral boundary buffer zones can introduce discontinuities in the waves entering the model domain. Sensitivity experiments with WRF show that the no nudging spectral approach introduces spurious effects in the buffer zone. The authors show that errors in the simulation of stationary Rossby wave dynamics are related to mean biases in models. The study also includes an attempt to relate summer heatwaves to extreme wave activity.
The framework is an important tool to diagnose large-scale circulation simulated by dynamical downscaling approaches. The manuscript is well written and requires some minor revisions before acceptance.
Comments:
Downscaling methods
Rossby wave ray theory
Wave activity flux
Climatology of large-scale circulation
Model biases
Wave activity flux and surface air temperature
Rossby waves and heatwaves