1 / 8

We should clear up the obvious deficiencies

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. Other remarks.

mimi
Download Presentation

We should clear up the obvious deficiencies

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. 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.

  2. Other remarks • Noise in time-series related to TKE-scheme. • on/off switching of convection related to mass flux profile. • There seems to be no agreement on the precipitation evaporation efficiency. • Most models don’t seem to trigger deep convection. • Cloud cover, and liquid water profile 1st order problem, microphysics is a 2nd order problem (but might affect the mean state considerably!!)

  3. Some models behave remarkably well • ECMWF, HIRLAM, AROME • These models worked actively on shallow cumulus (but did not tune their parameterization on the present case) • It seems that there are 3 crucial ingredients: • Good estimate of cloud base mass flux : M~ac w* • Good estimate of entrainment and detrainment • Good estimate of the variance of qt and ql in the cloud layer in order to have a good estimate of cloud cover and liquid water.

  4. 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)

  5. 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?

  6. Case set up changes (thermodynamics + forcings) • Simplify the case even further? • Only adjust set up to ensure SCM-LES cases are identical? (LES profiles -> SCM, SCM forcings -> LES) • Run a simulation without rain

  7. Case set up changes (microphysics) • Adjust cloud droplet number • Do people need CCN spectrum?

  8. Changes to output list LES • Thermodynamic variables hourly averaged • Threshold cloudy/rainy gridcell 0.01/0.001 g/kg • Tke, prec_fracsrf, zcb • Add precipitation averaged over rainy cells over • (optional) Total water and Liq. Water Pot. Temperature budget? • Other suggestions?

More Related