1 / 15

Numerical issues & Simple Tracers Michael Prather & Xin Zhu, UCI 5 Nov 2003

Numerical issues & Simple Tracers Michael Prather & Xin Zhu, UCI 5 Nov 2003 Goal: Compare the GMI/GISS23L met fields run with (a) GMI code & (b) UCI CTM Met Fields Simple Tracers provide a benchmark for the comparison (also basic info for trop chem analysis).

erma
Download Presentation

Numerical issues & Simple Tracers Michael Prather & Xin Zhu, UCI 5 Nov 2003

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. Numerical issues & Simple Tracers • Michael Prather & Xin Zhu, UCI • 5 Nov 2003 • Goal: Compare the GMI/GISS23L met fields • run with (a) GMI code & (b) UCI CTM • Met Fields • Simple Tracers • provide a benchmark for the comparison • (also basic info for trop chem analysis)

  2. Numerical issues & Simple Tracers • Met Fields • We have 2 consecutive years of GISS23L met fields • The netcdf met fields from GMI • are different from both of these (alas!?) • GMI/GISS23L statistics for {u,v,T,bl-ht} look fine • GMI/GISS23L statistics for {rain, convective flux} are odd • only 1 3-D rain (stratiform – cumulus from clouds?) • entraining and non-entraining updrafts combined. • - we can solve this and try to simulate the GMI runs – • but

  3. Numerical issues & Simple Tracers • Met Fields: GMI/GISS23L • What differences can we expect? • UCI CTM core is very different (SOM, op-split) • UCI CTM advection is SOM plus diff flux limiters • UCI CTM has very different convection. • Test of “cousin” met fields for interannual (?)

  4. Numerical issues & Simple Tracers • Simple Tracers • Jae Hoon did a fantastic job in running • the first draft of the simple tracers • Xin Zhu did preliminary analysis over the weekend • found some “undocumented features” • basically ready to go

  5. Simple Tracers ff-CO2: 1995 fossil fuel pattern (TransCom3 version) 6.3? Pg-C/yr, no loss??? ff-CO: Harvard fossil fuel CO emission grid (annual) 60-day lifetime (5 d in strat) bb-CO: Harvard biomass burning CO emissions (annual) CH3I: oceanic source (latitude?), 5-day lifetime

  6. ff-CO2: column density, Dec Y7 vs. DecY8

  7. ff-CO2: log mixing ratio, Jun Y8 vs. DecY8

  8. ff-CO2: annual growth (12-month diffs)

  9. bb-CO: log mixing ratio JUN DEC

  10. bb-CO: total burden and annual diff

  11. ff-CO: rel.diff. between Jan-start & Jul-start (+6 mon)

  12. CH3I: log mixing ratio too much at mid-lats

  13. NOT CONTRAILS CONTRAILS

More Related