impact of new arpege physics on rico case

Impact of new ARPEGE physics on RICO case Impact of new ARPEGE physics on RICO case

(19-sept-2006)

GCSS-GPCI / BLCL-RICO 18-21 sept 2006

P. Marquet, CNRM. Toulouse. Météo-France.

+ ARPEGE CLIMATE & N.W.P. team + Meso-Scale CNRM team

+ ENM (School of Met.) + CERFACS + IPSL-LMD …

IntroductionIntroduction First aim of the study :

Run the French Météo-France (CNRM) ARPEGE-CLIMAT SCM for the new RICO_composite (L80 and L31) …

Send the results for the inter-comparison : done / Pier …

+ 4 Impact studies : Test STANDARD versus NEW physics (Turb, Conv, -Phys) ?

Test of ( L80 / t = 5 mn ) versus ( L31 / t = 15 mn ) ?

Impact of the explicit Top PBL entrainment ?

Impact of the (Dry)-thermals ?

The Climate ARPEGE physics : STANDARD / NEW1 / NEW2The Climate ARPEGE physics : STANDARD / NEW1 / NEW2

STANDARD / V3-V4 NEW1 / Mixed NEW2 / IPCC / full-Diagnostic Diag+Prog full-Prognostic

TURB DIAG. Mellor-Yamada DIAG. M&Y PROGN. / C.B.R. e / t = 0 e / t = 0 e / t = P + Dif – Dis

moist PDF / Bougeault moist PDF / moist PDF / Bougeault Bougeault / Bechtold

Micro-Phys DIAG. PROGN. PROGN.Smith/Kessler Smith/Kessler Bulk - Lopezq_liq / q_ice q_liq / q_ice q_cloud / q_rain

Shallow part in TURB , but why ? Mass-Flux Mass-FluxConvection + Mass-Flux Bougeault ? CAPE / Gueremy CAPE / Gueremy

Deep Mass-Flux / Bougeault Mass-Flux Mass-FluxConvection Convergence of HU CAPE / Gueremy CAPE / Gueremy

Top-PBL NO YES YESEntrainment Grenier & Breth. Grenier & Breth.

Validation of N_low : GCM (T63-L31)Validation of N_low : GCM (T63-L31)

Strato Cu<- STD

(DJF+JJA)N_low - ISCCP

Strato Cu<- NEW

Lopez + CV_GY

+ TKE-CBR

+ Ent_PBL

The NEW2 turbulent scheme : TKE-CBRThe NEW2 turbulent scheme : TKE-CBR

TKE-C.B.R. (2000) + B.L. (1989) for Mixing Length + F2 & 3 / Bougeault (1982) & Bechtold (1995) ; EUROCS : GCM <-> EPCI+GPCI+ACI <-> SCM

Micro-physics : pdf

TKE-C.B.R. (2000) + B.L. (1989) + F2 & 3 / Bougeault (1982) & Bechtold (1995)

Variance of q_cloud : PDF Variance of q_cloud : PDF

Sc

Cu

An Explicit Top-PBL EntrainmentAn Explicit Top-PBL Entrainment

Grenier (ARPEGE)

Vertical Diffusion of theBetts variables : _l and q_t

( A1 = 0.16 )( A2 = 0.0 )

SCM / EUROCS_ARM_Cu (Lenderink)SCM / EUROCS_ARM_Cu (Lenderink) q_cloud

ARP-NEW2 / L19

+ Top PBL ent.

LES-KNMI

ARP-NEW2 / L19

ARP-STD / L19

SCM / EUROCS_ARM_Cu (Lenderink)SCM / EUROCS_ARM_Cu (Lenderink) THETA (L19)

ARP-NEW2 +Top PBL ent.

LES-KNMI

ARP-NEW2

ARP-STD

Ayotte 24SC / L96Ayotte 24SC / L96

Hourdin, Couvreux,

Menut, J.A.S., 2002.

And for RICO ?And for RICO ?

Impact studies :

Test STANDARD versus NEW physics : STD versus NEW2

L80 / t = 5 mn ; L31 / t = 15 mn

Impact of the explicit Top PBL entrainment : NEW2_noent

Impact of the (Dry)-thermals : NEW2_noDTh

RICO L80 / THETA_l

NEW2_noent

NEW2_noDTh

STD NEW2

STD instable ; NEW2 better, But with a drift z>2km ?a –0.5 K bias in the PBL ?a very small impact of « entr. »a large impact of Dry Thermals

RICO L31 / THETA_l

NEW2_noent

NEW2_noDTh

STD NEW2

STD noisy ; NEW2 better, with a smaller drift z>2km ! ?a –0.5 K bias in the PBL ?a greater impact of « entr. »and larger impact of Dry Thermals

RICO L80 / Zonal Wind

STD NEW2 NEW2_noent

NEW2_noDTh

STD noisy ; NEW2 better, But why these oscillations ?A small impact of « ent »A greater impact of Dry Thermals

RICO L80 / Cloud Cover

NEW2_noent

NEW2_noDTh

STD NEW2

STD very noisy !! NEW2 better, Cloud Base and Maxi OK, Drift of Cloud top <-> theta ?A small impact of « ent »A large impact of Dry ThermalsWhat about the values of C.C. ??

L80

L31

LES KNMI

RICO / Cloud Cover Average 24h - 30h

STD very noisy up to 3.5 km !! NEW2 better L80 : from 0.5 to 2.5 km : OK ; the good shapeL31 : too deep cloud 0.2 to 4 km !!L31 : Large impact of Top PBL entr. !What about the values of C.C. ??

RICO / Cloud Content Average 24h - 30h

L80

L31

LES KNMI

SAME as for CLOUD-COVER… Except that values compare to LES…STD very noisy up to 3.5 km !! NEW2 better L80 : from 0.5 to 2.5 km : OK ; the good shapeL31 : too deep cloud 0.2 to 4 km !!L31 : Large impact of Top PBL entr. !

L80

LES KNMI

RICO / <w’’l> Average 24h - 30h

W/m2

K*(m/s)

W/m2

L31

NEW2 L80 realistic… except close to the surface !!

NEW2

LH (W/m2)L80

NEW2 L80 Cloud Cover

NEW2

L80 Precip. mm/day

NEW2 L80 LWP

L80 LES BOMEX

RICO / TKEAverage 24h - 30h

W/m2 m2/s2

W/m2

L31

ConclusionsConclusions Mainly, questions !…

Apart from the (internal) validation of the ARPEGE physics… Why this drift above 2.5 km ? smaller with L31 /t =15 mn : w ?

Are the oscillations for (u,v) Wind observed by others ?

How to compare Precip & C.C. to LES or Obs. ? => Radiation !

A real interest for this RICO case ! “Composite” -> “Long_Run” ? RICO GPCI & AMMA-CI (next talk)… Continue EUROCS’ method…

A deep impact of top-PBL/TURB shallow convection

Small for EUROCS- Cu / large for RICO… Precip ?

RICO L31 / Cloud Cover

NEW2_noent

NEW2_noDTh

STD

NEW2

STD very noisy up to 4 km !! NEW2 better, But worse than L31 (clud base ?)A large impact of « ent »And larger impact of Dry Thermals

L80

L31

LES KNMI

RICO / <w’q’t> Average 24h - 30h

W/m2

W/m2

(g/kg)*(m/s)

L80 LES KNMI

RICO / <w’’vl> Average 24h - 30h

W/m2 K*(m/s)

W/m2

L31

RICO SH (W/m2)

STD NEW2

STD NEW2

L80

L31 L31

L80

STD NEW2

STD NEW2

RICO LH (W/m2)

L80

L31 L31

L80

RICO Cloud Cover

STD

NEW2 L31 L31

STD

NEW2

L80

L80

RICO Precip.

STD

NEW2

STD NEW2

L31

L80 L80

L31

RICO LWP

STD

NEW2 L31 L31

STD

NEW2 L80 L80