Date post: | 18-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Single Column Model representation
of RICO shallow cumulus convection
A.Pier Siebesma and Louise Nuijens,KNMI, De Bilt
The Netherlands
And all the participants to the case
Many thanks to: All the participants
Main Questions
Are the single column model versions of GCM’s, ‘LAM’s and mesoscale models capable of:
• representing realistic mean thermodynamic state when subjected to the best guess of the applied large scale forcings.
• Reproducing realistic precipitation characteristics
The game to be played
tifdt
d
dt
d
dt
d
lsphystot
0
vuqwheret ,,,)0( 1. Start with the observed mean state:
2. Let the initial state evolve until it reaches steady state:
3. Evaluate the steady state with observations in all its aspects
with observations (both real and pseudo-obs (LES) ), i.e.
obsvs )(
Two Flavours of the game
T
timeLSphys
dtdt
d
dt
dT
0
)0()(
1. Use the mean LS-forcing of the suppressed period:
2. Use directly the the time-varying LS forcing for the whole suppressed period.
i.e. the composite case.
T
LSphys
dtdt
d
dt
dT
0
)0()(
Model Type Participant Institute
CAM3/GB GCM (Climate) C-L Lappen CSU (US)
UKMO GCM (NWP/Climate) B. Devendish UK Metoffice (UK)
JMA GCM (NWP/Climate) H. Kitagawa JMA (Japan)
HIRLAM/RACMO LAM (NWP/Climate) W. De Rooy KNMI (Netherlands)
GFDL GCM (Climate) C. Golaz GFDL (US)
RACMO/TKE LAM (Climate S. De Roode KNMI (Netherlands)
COSMO NWP/regional/mesoscale J. Helmert DWD (Germany)
LMD GCM Climate) Levefbre LMD (France)
LaRC/UCLA LAM (Mesoscale) Anning Cheng NASA-LaRC (US)
ADHOC C-L Lappen CSU (US)
AROME LAM (Mesoscale) S. Malardel Meteo-France (France)
ECHAM GCM (Climate) R. Posselt ETH (Switzerland)
ARPEGE GCM (Climate) P. Marquet Meteo-France (France
ECMWF GCM (NWP) R. Neggers ECMWF (UK
Model PBL Scheme Convection Cloud
CAM3/GB TKE (bretherton/grenier) MF (Hack) Prog l,
UKMOK-profile/expl entr. /moist(?)
MF (Gregory-Rowntree)Mb=0.03w*
Stat/RH_cr (Smith)
JMAK-profile/expl entr/moist.
MF (Arakawa-Schubert) Stat/RH_cr (Smith)
HIRLAM/RACMO
TKE/moist MF(Tiedtke89)New entr/detr, M=a w* closure
Stat, diagns from K and MF
GFDLK-profile/expl entr/moist(?)
MF (Rasch) l,c prognostic
RACMO/TKE TKE moist MF (Tiedtke(89) l,c,prognostic
LMD Ri-number MF (Emanuel) Stat
LaRC/UCLA3rd order pdf basedLarson/Golaz (2005)
3rd order pdf basedLarson/Golaz (2005)
3rd order pdf basedLarson/Golaz (2005)
ADHOCAssumed pdfhigh order MF
Assumed pdfhigh order MF
Assumed pdfhigh order MF
AROME TKE-moist MF (pbl/cu-updraft) Stat. diagnostic
ECHAMTKE-moist Tiedtke(89) Entr/detr
(Nordeng)Stat Tompkins 2002)
ARPEGETKE-moist
MFStat ,cloud coverL=prognostic
ECMWF K-profile (moist) MF (pbl/cu-updraft) Stat. diagnostic
Submitted versions
Each model asked to submit:
• Operational resolution / prescribed resolution
• Operational physics / Modified physics
• Composite constant forcing / variable forcing
Different Building Blocks
Moist Convection
entr/detr
M_b , w_u
Extended in bl
Cloud scheme:
stat
progn
Precip
precip?
microphysics
precip
PBL:K-profile
TKE
Higher order
ac, q
, q
acEstimating: ac,qlac,ql
on/off
• need increasingly more information from eachother
• demands more coherence between the schemes
At least in general much better than with the previous Shallow cumulus case based on ARM
(profiles after ~10 hours
Lenderink et al. QJRMS 128 (2002)
Some models behave remarkably well
• These models worked actively on shallow cumulus
• It seems that there are 3 crucial ingredients:
1. Good estimate of cloud base mass flux : M~ac w*
2. Good estimate of entrainment and detrainment
3. Good estimate of the variance of qt and l in the cloud layer in order to have a good estimate of cloud cover and liquid water.
Conclusions
• Mean state (slightly) better than for the ARM case
• Most models are unaccaptable noisy (mainly due to switching between different modes/schemes.
• Probably due to unwanted interactions between the various schemes
• No agreement on precipitation evaporation
• Performance amazingly poor for such a simple case for which we know what it takes to have realistic and stable response.
• Difficult to draw conclusions on the microphysics in view of the intermittant behaviour of the turbulent and convective fluxes.
We should clear up the obvious deficiencies
•Check LS Forcings: should we ask for it as required output?
• u,v –profiles : RACMO-TKE, ECMWF, UCLA-LaRC, ECHAM
•Ask for timeseries for u,v,q,T near surface to check surface fluxes and cloud base height off-line.
Required observational data
• Liquid water path (or even better profiles)
• cloud cover profiles (should be possible)
• .precipitation evaporation efficiency.
• Cloud base mass flux.
• Incloud properties., entrainment, detrainment mass flux (Hermann??)
• Variance of qt and theta (for cloud scheme purposes)
Further Points:
• Proceed with the long run??
•Get the the RICO-sondes into the ECMWF/NCEP analysis in order to get better forcings?
•Should we do 3d-GCM RICO?
s
st qqtQ
Cloud cover
Bechtold and Cuijpers JAS 1995
Bechtold and Siebesma JAS 1999Wood (2002)
Statistical Cloud schemes