fast

1. Cloud-topped boundary layer response time scales in MLM and LES Christopher R. Jones, Christopher S. Bretherton, Peter N. Blossey University of Washington, Seattle USA Fast time scale due to entrainment feedbacks Fast cloud base response in MLM and LES • Classic MLM arguments (e.g., Schubert et al, 1979) suggest two characteristic time scales for a well-mixed CTBL evolution: • Inversion-deepening: a few days. • Thermodynamic: 1 day. • We use a MLM and LES to show that, in addition to these time scales, a separate fast time scale exists, which is associated with entrainment-cloud thickness feedbacks: • Entrainment-LWP: a few hours. LES MLM Eigenvalues of the linearization L with or without including the direct impact of radiation (R), precipitation (P) or entrainment feedbacks (E). Idealized Test Case for MLM and LES Control (CTL): GCSS DYCOMS-II RF01 case (Stevens et al. 2005, MWR). • Non-precipitating, well-mixed nocturnal Sc. • Entrainment rate, liquid water path, turbulence well-observed. • Initialized with cloud-topped mixed layer, zi = 840 m, N = 150 cm-3. • Linear , moisture profiles above cloud layer, initial = 9 K. • D = 3.75x10-6 s-1, SST = 292.5 K. • Constant moisture profile above cloud layer. • Simplified dependence of radiative cooling on cloud structure. Perturbation (): • Moist layer above the BL that subsides into cloud top after approximately 5 hours. Models LES: SAM6.7, , up to 1500 m, Lx= Ly = 6.4 km, periodic BCs (More details: Uchida et al. 2010, ACP). MLM: LES-tuned entrainment and drizzle (More details: Caldwell and Bretherton 2009, J. Climate; Uchida et al. 2010, ACP). • Extracting time scales from MLM linearization • Original system of equations: • Consider a perturbation at to either the forcing parameters () or the state (), and linearize: • where • Solution: • In terms of eigenvalues () and eigenvectors () of L: • Time scales: • Important points: • Time scales determined by eigenvalues of linearization. • Eigenvectors indicate whichperturbation vectors are associated with a given time scale. • Response to a given perturbation depends on how that perturbation projects onto each eigenvector. • Linearization works remarkably well for predicting initial evolution of perturbation. Physical interpretation of fast entrainment response The entrainment closure can be written as: The terms and are approximately constant over short times (see figure below), while cloud base can respond quickly. The thermodynamic variables can be combined in the MLM to generate: Using the approximation and rearranging yields: fast slow (LES) CTL (LES) (Entrainment Closure) CTL Linearized • Physically for this perturbation, increasing implies: • cloud base initially drops (cloud thickens rapidly, generates more turbulence) • increases in response (increases entrainment warming, drying) • opposes further LWP increase Evolution of perturbation eigenvectors in MLM • Conclusions • MLM shows three well-separated time scales: • Slow BL-deepening scale. • Intermediate thermodynamic adjustment scale. • Fast entrainment-LWP adjustment scale. • Fast scale exhibited in both LES and MLM. • Magnitude of fast scale in MLM dependent on entrainment closure. • LES time scale supports use of cloud-thickness sensitive entrainment closure in MLM. MLM • Variables: • : Inversion height • : Cloud base • : Moist static energy • : Surface exchange velocity • : Entrainment rate • D: Large-scale divergence • :Total water mixing ratio Thanks: Marat Khairoutdinov for SAM Funding: NOAA MAPP CPT Fast component dominates initial cloud thickening response through rapid cloud base adjustment