- Email: [email protected]
Models of the high latitude stratosphere and mesosphere
3—121
Adv. Space Res. Vol.1, pp.11
©COSPAR, 1981.
Printed in Great
0273—1177/81/0401—0113$05.OO/O
-
Britain.
MODELS OF THE HIGH LATITUDE STRATOSPHERE AND MESOSPHERE GA. Kokin, D.A. Tarasenko and L.A. Ryazanova State Committee of the USSR for Hydrometeorology and Control of Natural Environment, Moscow, USSR
ABSTRACT methods of calculation of interhemispheric and longitudina]. diff e— rences are discussed. It is noted that in models one should take into account the solar activity influence. Network rocket sounding accuracy, devices and technique compatibility are analysed. INTRODUCTION The paper deals mainly with high latitude temperature models. The reasons for this are as follows. First, temperature is one of the two principal parameters measured directly in the world rocket sounding station network. Pressure and density are derivative values calculated by means Of the hydrostatic equation. Second, temperature data are applied for calculation of regression relations used in prosessing of satellite radionietric measurements. Third, horizontal temperature gradients are initial data for calculations of the ther— ma]. winds often used in models. The CIRA 1972 model describes adequately major features of the stratosphere and mesosphere [1]. however, in CIRA 1972 there are no models for latitudes exceeding 70 and no models for the southern hemisphere. Besides, the CIRA 1972 model takes into acgount only in part longitudinal differences between the eastern C 65 i~) and western ( 80 W) hemispheres. It does not in~cludeinterannua]. variations for the high latitude winter. Long—period temperature and wind trends in the stratosphere and mesosphere are not taken into account. In particular, there is no relationship of thermodynamic parameters with the 11—year solar activity cycle. We have available the following information (in addition to other data) to develop high latitude models. an the norihern hemisphere rocket data from Heass Island (80037 ‘N 58°03‘ B) for the period 1960—L980 C 1000 observations), in the 0souther~hemisphere: rocket data from I~i1o1odezhnayastation (67 40’S 45 51’L) for the period from August 1969 to 1980 ( 500 observations). —
— .
113
114
G.A. Kokin et al.
2J~21PI~RATUREDATA
Before the discussion of characteristic temperature profiles one should examine problems connected with rocket sounding accuracy and. compatibility of instrumentation and method-s. A large amount of laboratory investigntions and technical designing was completed in the Ub~3Rduring recent years concerning improvement of the sounding accuracy of tue M—100B rocket. Great attention has been paid to la— boratoriy experiments concerning aerodynamic coefficients of rocket thermistors, to increase the accuracy of raciiometric and remote measurements, to decrease the fall velocity of rocketsondes and in— crease the movement stability of rocketsondes. In particular, it was found. that due to the aerodynamical effect thermistors of -the former design [2] lowered the measured mesosphe— nc temperature. In this connection, a modified design of resistance thermistor was developed [3]. In ~i-l pairs of simultaneous temperature measurements by the two types of resistance thermistor the difference was equal to 2 C at L1.5_50 km altitudes, 7 C at 55 kin, 12—13 C at 60—65 km and. 9 C at 70 km. Instrument calibration errors and shortcomings of the mathematical processing program also influenced the measured results. The total error in temperature measurements by resistance thermistors depends on contributed errors of the radioiaetnic and radar sybtems, on errors in determination of experimental values in. the fundamental equation of thermistors, as well as on processing methods, The standard error was found both theoretically and experimentally taking into account all these factors. It changes from 2 K at an. altitude of 30 kinto 6K at 80km.
Temperature measurement systematic differences were determined by comparative launchings of different types of rockets [3]. The results of comparisons of boviet (M—100B) and .~.nerioan (buper—Loki— —Datasonde) rocket systems are given in Pig.1. The differences given in Fig.l should not be considered as the systematic errors of the soviet resistance thermistor, because systems being compared have their own non—accounted measures~entsystematic errors. In the ~3oviet Union for synoptic studies the Lllg,R—06 rocket system is used Some weather ships of tue State Committee of the U~Rfor ~1ydrometeoro1ogy and. Control of Natural ~nvirormientare supplied with ttu.s roc~cetsystem. klicroresistance is used to measure air temperature. Descent velocities of I~iR—O6rockets are less than the velocities of ~i—1OOBrockets. The results of comparison of hjLtR—06 and. M—100B rockets are given in 1~ig.2. They show slight systematic differences of the sounding systems up to 5~km altitude. Differences in data obtained by means of grenades, Pitot [14.] cket thermistors of modified design on M—100B rockets require en comparisons and careful analysis of instrument systematic Causes of summer temperature differences of 9 C at the 65 km tude are not yet clear (Fig.3).
and no.
furth~ errors~ alti-
i~’rom[5] it is seen that the grenade method is rather representative. In this connection, for temperature analysis at altitudes above
High Latitude Stratosphere and Mesosphere
115
~js Warmer~--USColder
w
__
—~
__
—
-20-15-10
-i
0
__
J
/0
~T(C)
Temperature discrepancies C T) between the Soviet (M—100B) and American (Super—Loki—Datasonde) rocket sys— tems obtained. during the intercomparison test (Wallops Island, 1977) Fig.]..
65
JO
‘U 0
/ .4
____
____
I’ 30/
.200
_
~50 Temperature, (K)
300
Fig.2. Results of M—100B (1) and bi~1R—O6 (2) rocket systems comparisons, kay 1979, Indian ocean, near the equator, mean values of 7 pairs of simultaneous measurements.
G.A. Kokin et al.
116
LU
“:~
I
~J
__________
IH’
T__
70————-~-—--
N
—
—
10~7~ -~
—
Temperature,
Pig.3.
I
(c)
Temperature profiles obtained by means of grenad-
es and. Pitot (1) at Point Barrow, M—lOO rocket (2) and.
ivi—100B rocket (with thermistors of modified design) (5) at Heiss Islan.d, summer. 50 km we used grenade data as basic values. Adjustments were introduced into Soviet rocket sounding data [9]. Mean annual variations of wind and temperature over Heiss Is. and Molodezhnaya at. were presented earlier in [10, ii]. V~iarm season models represent completely characteristic features of the summer atmosphere, which can not be said about winter distributions which are very variable due to the development of strato—mesosphenic warmings and. related circulation reversals. The method of presentation of warm and. cold models of the winter stratosphere for polar latitudes is examined in [7].r Longitudinal variations of mean temperature and. wind in. the upper stratosphere and inesosphere can be revealed. in mean charts of distribution of these meteorological parameters. Global mean 2, 0.14 and. 0.1 mbar contour charts and the northern hemisphere 0.001 mbar charts [12, l3J are compiled, which exhibit both temperature and wind, longitudinal variations. As an example the wind data for diffe.: rent longitudes [114-] are given in Table 1. Interhemispheric as well as longitudinal differences are especially large in winter seasons of the both hemispheres. Usually the Antarc. tic polar cyclone in’ the lower and middle stratosphere is much col— den than the Arctic one (by 10—20 C). At the same time, the summer stratosphere of the southern hemisphere is warmer than that of the
High
Latitude Strato~phereand Me~os~Ijere.
117
TABLE I Wind Velocity Zonal Component for High Latitudes of the Northern 80 kin Altitude (in m/s)
Hemisphere at Longitude Months
0 I
90°E
.
VII
180°
I
VII
I
90°W IV
‘
I
VII
Latitude 60°N
42
10
511.
8
0
7
35
15
70°N
21
8
26
7
—6
—12
114.
8
—11
—23
0
—24
—12
—7
—6
—8
N.
\
_\_,~—~~
\
‘U ~
-—-2
/
4)
~40-
/
LOL -80
__
—60
‘
————
-hO
‘
-20
Temperature, (C)
Pig.4. Temperature profiles over Heiss Is. in maximum (1) and minimum (2) solar activity years, .
winter.
118
G.A. Kokjn at
al.
northern hemisphere. In winter seasons at high latitudes temperature differences in the upper Stratosphere between the northern and. soutnern riemispheres are absent i-lowever, according to aiolodezbnaya station ~ata the upper stratosphere of tue ~mntarcticin late winter is warmer on the average than that of the Arctic [is]. This is explained by the fact that i~iolodezhnaya station is situated in the warm sector of the Antarctic. Longitudinal differences in the winter stratosphere and mesosphere of the Antarctic are important. ~emperature values in the banter mesosphere over the Antarctic are also somewhat higner than over tne Arctic biiuiiar results are obtained in [ii, lb, 17] Observational models of thermodynamic parameters and. ~ona1 wind velocity distributions in the upper stratosphere ana mesospheie of tue southern hemisphere are presented in [ii] hi~~lata kindly presented by the Prof. G Houghton’s group from Oxford were used for analysis of the spatial distribution of temperature and other parameters.
J?inally, let us consider the solar activity influence during an 11— —year cycle on the temperature
in the stratosphere
and mesosphere
of the polar region in winter. For the present, data considered are of an illustrative character and indicate the necessity of taking into account solar activity in development of stratospheric and me— sospheric models.
In polar winter regions solar radiations direct influence in the electromagnetic band. is a minimum. Therefore, effects connected with the disturbed Sun must appear more distinctly. Hence, polar electro~etdynamics and corpuscular fluxes in the winter season of the polar region and their contribution to the energy budget should be more marked. Taking into account these circumstances, let us consider temperature variation in an U—year solar activity cycle in the polar region. As a measure of solar activity the exospheric minimum temperature was used, this is affected both by solar flux at 10.7 cm (~‘0 and by geomagnetic activity (k~index). Validity 01’ this pa~a~ter and of the method of ca1culati~nis described in [18]. In winter mean values of T (December_January—February) for the period from 1966 to 1976 two maxima are seen: the first one, the main, was in 1968 equal to 1330 K and the seoond, in. equal to Te 1970 = 900 K. So, 1230 K. The least value was observed in. 1976, with in this period of observations the maximum amplitude of the winter mean values of Te was equal to 14-00 K. To compare Te with temperature values in the stratosphere and. me— sosphere all data were grouped into two main periods maximum —
(1968—1971) and minimum (1974—1976) solar activity. As an example, winter mean values of T and mean temperatures at the altitudes of 45 1cm (the stratosphere~ and. 70 km (the mesosphere) over Heiss Is. are given in Table 2. It is seen from Table 2 data that atmospheric temperature in the polar region is different in years of maximum and minimum solar activity. Note that these temperature differences are significant in all layers. In Figs. 14—5 temperature vertical profiles over Heiss Is., Mob—
dezhnaya st., Point Barrow, Fort Churchill for periods of maximum
High Latitude Stratosphere
80
~a)
~
\
119
~:)
~
\
fV=18
~
\\\
70
and Mesosphere
‘S
~‘\
\\\
M—I00
\\
Grenade
\
I
-
——-i
I
“
If
/ I’ ~
40.
I)
(I/
30
1
/1—
//
/ I
80
0
0
20ThY~
o
40
40
Temperature, (C) Pig.5. Temperature profiles ‘over Mobod.ezbnaya at. (a), Point Barrow (b) and Fort Churchill (c) in maximum (1) and. minimum (2) solar activity years. Winter
TABLE 2 Winter Mean Values of Ta and Temperature T (C) over.Heiss Is. in.
Years of Maximum and Minimum So1~r£ctivity at Altitudes of 45 and /0 1cm
H 1cm
Winter mean tem— perature K in 1968—1971 1233
‘
Winter mean tem— perature K in 1974—1976 996
T—70
217
202
T—45
233
263
,
Temperature diffe— rences over the pe— nods mentioned, K ,
237
15
are given. For high latitude stations in the western hemisphere grenade data were used. Temperature profiles for mi n~mum solar activity are obtained on the basis of the LXI solar cycle data. and minimum solar activity
G.A. Kokin at al.
120
7’70
Y=‘28~0.O7.4X .59
1260
1100
1200
1300
Y~/54+0.033X y~225*0.29X-0.O0I1,~
Y~341-0.8/X 2 Y=-319÷,.ix-0.0052X
T 20
Th5
• •
200.70
210
74
~
~
-
iWO
~
Fig.6.
,
/200
.67
.e?o-
i.~J
1300
I
1000
•
1100
/2120
/300
Regression dependences between exospheric
minimum temperature CT 0) and temperature over Heiss
Is. CT) at 70, 11-3 and 20 km altitudes. and temperature of different atmospheric layers can~be seen from Fig.6, which represents linear and quadratic regression relations for Heiss Is. Numbers near points indicate years for which temperature mean values are obta-. med. At the 70 km altitude the large deviation of the 1969 point may be explained by a major zaesosphenic warming observed at this period. The connection between solar activity
In our opinion, dependence of the thermal regime on. solar activity is seen. from the variability of a lot of factors, for example, long planetary waves, turbulent heat conduction, vertical currents, the polar electrojet, as well as radiative cooling connected with atmospheric air content variation. Solar activity influence on. temperature of the stratosphere and mesosphere was considered in papers [18-20] , and the conclusion about the necessity of taking into account solar activity influence in development of models is in agreement with results obtained by other authors [17]
High Latitude Stratosphere and Mesosphere
121
REFERENCES
1.
cosi~i~ International
Reference Atmosphere 1972, CIRA. 1972
,
Akadenile Verlag, Berlin, 1972. 2. E.A. Besyadovaky et al., Trudy CAO, 82, 3 (1969).
3. A.I. Ivanovsky et al., Space Research XXI, 127 (1979). 4, J.S, Theon at a].., The Mean Observed Meteorological Structure and Circulation of the Atmosphere, NASA TR E—375, Washington, D.C. 1972.
3. J.L. Sobmidlin, Preliminary Results of the US—USSR Meteorological Rocketsonde Intercojnparison Held at Wallops Island, Va., August 1977, Presented at COSPAR XXI InnsbrucI~, 1978.
6. GOST 11401—73. Standard Atmosphere. Parameters. Izdanje oficial— noye. M., izdatelstvo Standartov, 1974.
7. IS0/TC—20/SC—6 (USA—b) 102.E, April 1977. 8. 2.2. Gaigerov et al., Meteorobogia i Gidrologia, 3, 106 (1978).
9. LE. Gelman et al., J. Atmosph. Sci., 32, 9, 1705 (1975). 10. D.A. Tarasenko, Space Research XIX, 133 (1979). 11. yu.P. Koshelkov, Circulacia i Stroenie Stratosferi i Mesosfeni Yujnogo Polusharia, Gidrometizdat, Leningrad, 1960. 12. 8.2. Gaigerov et a].., Space Research XI, 799 (1971). 13. 2.8. Gaigerov et al., Space Research XX, (1980). 14. ISO/TC—20/SC—6, 1978. 15. 8.2. Gaigerov and Yu.P. Koshelkov, Space Research XIII, 173 (1973). 16. Knittel,
J1 Meteor. Abhandlungen, Ser.A, 2/1—1, 1 (1976).
17. K. Labitzke, Phil. Trans. H. Soc. Lond., A296 (1980). 18. G.A. Kokin at al., Meteorologia i Gidrologia~, 10 (1977). 19. J.K. Angell and 1. Korshover, 7. Atmos. Sd., 20. R.8. Quiroz, J. Geoph. Res., ~f, 2413 (1979).
33, 1758 (1978).
Adv. Space Res. Vol.1, pp.11
©COSPAR, 1981.
Printed in Great
0273—1177/81/0401—0113$05.OO/O
-
Britain.
MODELS OF THE HIGH LATITUDE STRATOSPHERE AND MESOSPHERE GA. Kokin, D.A. Tarasenko and L.A. Ryazanova State Committee of the USSR for Hydrometeorology and Control of Natural Environment, Moscow, USSR
ABSTRACT methods of calculation of interhemispheric and longitudina]. diff e— rences are discussed. It is noted that in models one should take into account the solar activity influence. Network rocket sounding accuracy, devices and technique compatibility are analysed. INTRODUCTION The paper deals mainly with high latitude temperature models. The reasons for this are as follows. First, temperature is one of the two principal parameters measured directly in the world rocket sounding station network. Pressure and density are derivative values calculated by means Of the hydrostatic equation. Second, temperature data are applied for calculation of regression relations used in prosessing of satellite radionietric measurements. Third, horizontal temperature gradients are initial data for calculations of the ther— ma]. winds often used in models. The CIRA 1972 model describes adequately major features of the stratosphere and mesosphere [1]. however, in CIRA 1972 there are no models for latitudes exceeding 70 and no models for the southern hemisphere. Besides, the CIRA 1972 model takes into acgount only in part longitudinal differences between the eastern C 65 i~) and western ( 80 W) hemispheres. It does not in~cludeinterannua]. variations for the high latitude winter. Long—period temperature and wind trends in the stratosphere and mesosphere are not taken into account. In particular, there is no relationship of thermodynamic parameters with the 11—year solar activity cycle. We have available the following information (in addition to other data) to develop high latitude models. an the norihern hemisphere rocket data from Heass Island (80037 ‘N 58°03‘ B) for the period 1960—L980 C 1000 observations), in the 0souther~hemisphere: rocket data from I~i1o1odezhnayastation (67 40’S 45 51’L) for the period from August 1969 to 1980 ( 500 observations). —
— .
113
114
G.A. Kokin et al.
2J~21PI~RATUREDATA
Before the discussion of characteristic temperature profiles one should examine problems connected with rocket sounding accuracy and. compatibility of instrumentation and method-s. A large amount of laboratory investigntions and technical designing was completed in the Ub~3Rduring recent years concerning improvement of the sounding accuracy of tue M—100B rocket. Great attention has been paid to la— boratoriy experiments concerning aerodynamic coefficients of rocket thermistors, to increase the accuracy of raciiometric and remote measurements, to decrease the fall velocity of rocketsondes and in— crease the movement stability of rocketsondes. In particular, it was found. that due to the aerodynamical effect thermistors of -the former design [2] lowered the measured mesosphe— nc temperature. In this connection, a modified design of resistance thermistor was developed [3]. In ~i-l pairs of simultaneous temperature measurements by the two types of resistance thermistor the difference was equal to 2 C at L1.5_50 km altitudes, 7 C at 55 kin, 12—13 C at 60—65 km and. 9 C at 70 km. Instrument calibration errors and shortcomings of the mathematical processing program also influenced the measured results. The total error in temperature measurements by resistance thermistors depends on contributed errors of the radioiaetnic and radar sybtems, on errors in determination of experimental values in. the fundamental equation of thermistors, as well as on processing methods, The standard error was found both theoretically and experimentally taking into account all these factors. It changes from 2 K at an. altitude of 30 kinto 6K at 80km.
Temperature measurement systematic differences were determined by comparative launchings of different types of rockets [3]. The results of comparisons of boviet (M—100B) and .~.nerioan (buper—Loki— —Datasonde) rocket systems are given in Pig.1. The differences given in Fig.l should not be considered as the systematic errors of the soviet resistance thermistor, because systems being compared have their own non—accounted measures~entsystematic errors. In the ~3oviet Union for synoptic studies the Lllg,R—06 rocket system is used Some weather ships of tue State Committee of the U~Rfor ~1ydrometeoro1ogy and. Control of Natural ~nvirormientare supplied with ttu.s roc~cetsystem. klicroresistance is used to measure air temperature. Descent velocities of I~iR—O6rockets are less than the velocities of ~i—1OOBrockets. The results of comparison of hjLtR—06 and. M—100B rockets are given in 1~ig.2. They show slight systematic differences of the sounding systems up to 5~km altitude. Differences in data obtained by means of grenades, Pitot [14.] cket thermistors of modified design on M—100B rockets require en comparisons and careful analysis of instrument systematic Causes of summer temperature differences of 9 C at the 65 km tude are not yet clear (Fig.3).
and no.
furth~ errors~ alti-
i~’rom[5] it is seen that the grenade method is rather representative. In this connection, for temperature analysis at altitudes above
High Latitude Stratosphere and Mesosphere
115
~js Warmer~--USColder
w
__
—~
__
—
-20-15-10
-i
0
__
J
/0
~T(C)
Temperature discrepancies C T) between the Soviet (M—100B) and American (Super—Loki—Datasonde) rocket sys— tems obtained. during the intercomparison test (Wallops Island, 1977) Fig.]..
65
JO
‘U 0
/ .4
____
____
I’ 30/
.200
_
~50 Temperature, (K)
300
Fig.2. Results of M—100B (1) and bi~1R—O6 (2) rocket systems comparisons, kay 1979, Indian ocean, near the equator, mean values of 7 pairs of simultaneous measurements.
G.A. Kokin et al.
116
LU
“:~
I
~J
__________
IH’
T__
70————-~-—--
N
—
—
10~7~ -~
—
Temperature,
Pig.3.
I
(c)
Temperature profiles obtained by means of grenad-
es and. Pitot (1) at Point Barrow, M—lOO rocket (2) and.
ivi—100B rocket (with thermistors of modified design) (5) at Heiss Islan.d, summer. 50 km we used grenade data as basic values. Adjustments were introduced into Soviet rocket sounding data [9]. Mean annual variations of wind and temperature over Heiss Is. and Molodezhnaya at. were presented earlier in [10, ii]. V~iarm season models represent completely characteristic features of the summer atmosphere, which can not be said about winter distributions which are very variable due to the development of strato—mesosphenic warmings and. related circulation reversals. The method of presentation of warm and. cold models of the winter stratosphere for polar latitudes is examined in [7].r Longitudinal variations of mean temperature and. wind in. the upper stratosphere and inesosphere can be revealed. in mean charts of distribution of these meteorological parameters. Global mean 2, 0.14 and. 0.1 mbar contour charts and the northern hemisphere 0.001 mbar charts [12, l3J are compiled, which exhibit both temperature and wind, longitudinal variations. As an example the wind data for diffe.: rent longitudes [114-] are given in Table 1. Interhemispheric as well as longitudinal differences are especially large in winter seasons of the both hemispheres. Usually the Antarc. tic polar cyclone in’ the lower and middle stratosphere is much col— den than the Arctic one (by 10—20 C). At the same time, the summer stratosphere of the southern hemisphere is warmer than that of the
High
Latitude Strato~phereand Me~os~Ijere.
117
TABLE I Wind Velocity Zonal Component for High Latitudes of the Northern 80 kin Altitude (in m/s)
Hemisphere at Longitude Months
0 I
90°E
.
VII
180°
I
VII
I
90°W IV
‘
I
VII
Latitude 60°N
42
10
511.
8
0
7
35
15
70°N
21
8
26
7
—6
—12
114.
8
—11
—23
0
—24
—12
—7
—6
—8
N.
\
_\_,~—~~
\
‘U ~
-—-2
/
4)
~40-
/
LOL -80
__
—60
‘
————
-hO
‘
-20
Temperature, (C)
Pig.4. Temperature profiles over Heiss Is. in maximum (1) and minimum (2) solar activity years, .
winter.
118
G.A. Kokjn at
al.
northern hemisphere. In winter seasons at high latitudes temperature differences in the upper Stratosphere between the northern and. soutnern riemispheres are absent i-lowever, according to aiolodezbnaya station ~ata the upper stratosphere of tue ~mntarcticin late winter is warmer on the average than that of the Arctic [is]. This is explained by the fact that i~iolodezhnaya station is situated in the warm sector of the Antarctic. Longitudinal differences in the winter stratosphere and mesosphere of the Antarctic are important. ~emperature values in the banter mesosphere over the Antarctic are also somewhat higner than over tne Arctic biiuiiar results are obtained in [ii, lb, 17] Observational models of thermodynamic parameters and. ~ona1 wind velocity distributions in the upper stratosphere ana mesospheie of tue southern hemisphere are presented in [ii] hi~~lata kindly presented by the Prof. G Houghton’s group from Oxford were used for analysis of the spatial distribution of temperature and other parameters.
J?inally, let us consider the solar activity influence during an 11— —year cycle on the temperature
in the stratosphere
and mesosphere
of the polar region in winter. For the present, data considered are of an illustrative character and indicate the necessity of taking into account solar activity in development of stratospheric and me— sospheric models.
In polar winter regions solar radiations direct influence in the electromagnetic band. is a minimum. Therefore, effects connected with the disturbed Sun must appear more distinctly. Hence, polar electro~etdynamics and corpuscular fluxes in the winter season of the polar region and their contribution to the energy budget should be more marked. Taking into account these circumstances, let us consider temperature variation in an U—year solar activity cycle in the polar region. As a measure of solar activity the exospheric minimum temperature was used, this is affected both by solar flux at 10.7 cm (~‘0 and by geomagnetic activity (k~index). Validity 01’ this pa~a~ter and of the method of ca1culati~nis described in [18]. In winter mean values of T (December_January—February) for the period from 1966 to 1976 two maxima are seen: the first one, the main, was in 1968 equal to 1330 K and the seoond, in. equal to Te 1970 = 900 K. So, 1230 K. The least value was observed in. 1976, with in this period of observations the maximum amplitude of the winter mean values of Te was equal to 14-00 K. To compare Te with temperature values in the stratosphere and. me— sosphere all data were grouped into two main periods maximum —
(1968—1971) and minimum (1974—1976) solar activity. As an example, winter mean values of T and mean temperatures at the altitudes of 45 1cm (the stratosphere~ and. 70 km (the mesosphere) over Heiss Is. are given in Table 2. It is seen from Table 2 data that atmospheric temperature in the polar region is different in years of maximum and minimum solar activity. Note that these temperature differences are significant in all layers. In Figs. 14—5 temperature vertical profiles over Heiss Is., Mob—
dezhnaya st., Point Barrow, Fort Churchill for periods of maximum
High Latitude Stratosphere
80
~a)
~
\
119
~:)
~
\
fV=18
~
\\\
70
and Mesosphere
‘S
~‘\
\\\
M—I00
\\
Grenade
\
I
-
——-i
I
“
If
/ I’ ~
40.
I)
(I/
30
1
/1—
//
/ I
80
0
0
20ThY~
o
40
40
Temperature, (C) Pig.5. Temperature profiles ‘over Mobod.ezbnaya at. (a), Point Barrow (b) and Fort Churchill (c) in maximum (1) and. minimum (2) solar activity years. Winter
TABLE 2 Winter Mean Values of Ta and Temperature T (C) over.Heiss Is. in.
Years of Maximum and Minimum So1~r£ctivity at Altitudes of 45 and /0 1cm
H 1cm
Winter mean tem— perature K in 1968—1971 1233
‘
Winter mean tem— perature K in 1974—1976 996
T—70
217
202
T—45
233
263
,
Temperature diffe— rences over the pe— nods mentioned, K ,
237
15
are given. For high latitude stations in the western hemisphere grenade data were used. Temperature profiles for mi n~mum solar activity are obtained on the basis of the LXI solar cycle data. and minimum solar activity
G.A. Kokin at al.
120
7’70
Y=‘28~0.O7.4X .59
1260
1100
1200
1300
Y~/54+0.033X y~225*0.29X-0.O0I1,~
Y~341-0.8/X 2 Y=-319÷,.ix-0.0052X
T 20
Th5
• •
200.70
210
74
~
~
-
iWO
~
Fig.6.
,
/200
.67
.e?o-
i.~J
1300
I
1000
•
1100
/2120
/300
Regression dependences between exospheric
minimum temperature CT 0) and temperature over Heiss
Is. CT) at 70, 11-3 and 20 km altitudes. and temperature of different atmospheric layers can~be seen from Fig.6, which represents linear and quadratic regression relations for Heiss Is. Numbers near points indicate years for which temperature mean values are obta-. med. At the 70 km altitude the large deviation of the 1969 point may be explained by a major zaesosphenic warming observed at this period. The connection between solar activity
In our opinion, dependence of the thermal regime on. solar activity is seen. from the variability of a lot of factors, for example, long planetary waves, turbulent heat conduction, vertical currents, the polar electrojet, as well as radiative cooling connected with atmospheric air content variation. Solar activity influence on. temperature of the stratosphere and mesosphere was considered in papers [18-20] , and the conclusion about the necessity of taking into account solar activity influence in development of models is in agreement with results obtained by other authors [17]
High Latitude Stratosphere and Mesosphere
121
REFERENCES
1.
cosi~i~ International
Reference Atmosphere 1972, CIRA. 1972
,
Akadenile Verlag, Berlin, 1972. 2. E.A. Besyadovaky et al., Trudy CAO, 82, 3 (1969).
3. A.I. Ivanovsky et al., Space Research XXI, 127 (1979). 4, J.S, Theon at a].., The Mean Observed Meteorological Structure and Circulation of the Atmosphere, NASA TR E—375, Washington, D.C. 1972.
3. J.L. Sobmidlin, Preliminary Results of the US—USSR Meteorological Rocketsonde Intercojnparison Held at Wallops Island, Va., August 1977, Presented at COSPAR XXI InnsbrucI~, 1978.
6. GOST 11401—73. Standard Atmosphere. Parameters. Izdanje oficial— noye. M., izdatelstvo Standartov, 1974.
7. IS0/TC—20/SC—6 (USA—b) 102.E, April 1977. 8. 2.2. Gaigerov et al., Meteorobogia i Gidrologia, 3, 106 (1978).
9. LE. Gelman et al., J. Atmosph. Sci., 32, 9, 1705 (1975). 10. D.A. Tarasenko, Space Research XIX, 133 (1979). 11. yu.P. Koshelkov, Circulacia i Stroenie Stratosferi i Mesosfeni Yujnogo Polusharia, Gidrometizdat, Leningrad, 1960. 12. 8.2. Gaigerov et a].., Space Research XI, 799 (1971). 13. 2.8. Gaigerov et al., Space Research XX, (1980). 14. ISO/TC—20/SC—6, 1978. 15. 8.2. Gaigerov and Yu.P. Koshelkov, Space Research XIII, 173 (1973). 16. Knittel,
J1 Meteor. Abhandlungen, Ser.A, 2/1—1, 1 (1976).
17. K. Labitzke, Phil. Trans. H. Soc. Lond., A296 (1980). 18. G.A. Kokin at al., Meteorologia i Gidrologia~, 10 (1977). 19. J.K. Angell and 1. Korshover, 7. Atmos. Sd., 20. R.8. Quiroz, J. Geoph. Res., ~f, 2413 (1979).
33, 1758 (1978).