1 / 12

Gaussian PDF Cloud Parameterization

Gaussian PDF Cloud Parameterization. Peter Caldwell, Steve Klein, Sungsu Park + you. Outline: The PDF Macrophysics Microphysics Future work (radiation, ice, variance, convection). PDF: Formulation. Using a bivariate Gaussian in T l and q w =q t - q l

tassos
Download Presentation

Gaussian PDF Cloud Parameterization

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Gaussian PDF Cloud Parameterization Peter Caldwell, Steve Klein, Sungsu Park + you Outline: • The PDF • Macrophysics • Microphysics • Future work (radiation, ice, variance, convection)

  2. PDF: Formulation • Using a bivariate Gaussian in Tl and qw=qt-ql • follows Sommeria+Deardorff (1977), Mellor (1977) • qwPDF for liquid only. Ice follows default CAM5. • imperfect: ice inconsistency persists, qw not conserved. • Can be rewritten as univariate Gaussian in S=qw’ – BlTl’ where Bl=δqs/δT|Tl • univariatealways used for calculation • bivariateness only meaningful if σTl and σqw have real meaning • note if ql>0, ql=S+Q where Q=qw-qs(Tl,p)

  3. PDF: Variance • CAM5 cloud frac uses triangular PDF in qt with half-width δ ∝ Rhcrit • Currently spoof CAM5 by using triangle’s variance. • Tldependence requires an approximation. • Future work=diagnostic, process-based variance. 0.8 Rhcrit Profile δ 400mb { 700mb qt qs { CAM5 Our scheme 0.79 0.89 land ocn

  4. Macrophysics: Formulation • Computing liquid cloud fraction Al and cell-aveql from the S PDF is straightforward: • CAM5 uses triangular distn for Al and implicit, conserved Zhang et al (2003) for ql (+checks). Fig: Example PDF from ASTEX (dots) with Gaussian fit (line) and cldfrac(shaded).

  5. Macrophysics: Results • cldfrac changes explained by param rather than feedbacks. • generally small changes.

  6. Macrophysics: Understanding CldFrac PDF Run PDF ‘parasite’ off CAM5 run CAM5 Run Fig: 850 mbliquid cloud fraction (LCLOUD) from 1 mo CAM simulations. • PDF-forced and PDF-parasite runs similardifferences from cldfracparam • Cloud fraction differences due (partly?) to making width ∝ qw rather than qs. Fig: Cloud fraction vs qt/qs(T,p) for Gaussian, CAM5 (triangular), and Gaussian using CAM5 qs approach at p=500 mb, T=240 K.

  7. Microphysics: Subgrid ql For microphysical process w/ local rate R=xqly: autoconversion, accretion, immersion freezing, contact freezing, sedimentation • CAM5: • assumes SGS ql variability follows Γdistn • for given ql, drop diameter D follows a Γdistn with params chosen to keep drop conc constant • Gaussian PDF: • local ql=S+Q ql follows truncated Gaussian distn. 1d table lookup

  8. Microphysics: Substepping • Most of CAM5 microphysics is substepped, requiring PDF updates. • Updated PDF is Gaussian with unchanged Al and ql matching that prognosed by the model. • this approach makes qlpdf inconsistent with S PDF. • conceptually, this means that condensation/evaporation only occurs during macrophysics… which is logical. • Updating can be done by simply calingμ and σ by α=ql,new/ql,old! • If ql,old=0, Al and ql PDF equations can back out params. • Updated rates could be calculated as old rate times αy

  9. Microphysics: Results Accretion: Autoconversion: note scale change! Immersion Freezing: (Contact freezing always 0) • Using old/new agreement to test for bugs • At first glance, scheme looks reasonable!

  10. Microphysics: Results • Rates often agree, but many cases where parasite >driver exist. Fig: Autoconversion rates (color) as a function of ql and Nd. The RHS panel shows % difference between Gauss and Gamma rates (with denom chosen as min{driver,parasite} to emphasize errors). The RHS panel uses 2 runs (Gauss-driven and Gamma-driven) to increase the number of data points.

  11. Microphysics: Results Discrepancies aren’t correlated with height or whether all water was used up in the timestep. Fig: Gauss – Gamma % difference (prev slide RHS) broken into cases where microphysics depletes all ql (so limiting is needed) or not. Symbol size ∝ pressure level.

  12. Microphysics: Results Is difference explained by PDF shapes? Fig: Gauss – Gamma % difference (prev slide RHS) broken into cases where microphysics depletes all ql (so limiting is needed) or not. Symbol size ∝ pressure level.

More Related