ictp regional climate, 2-6 june 20031 sensitivity to convective parameterization in regional climate...
TRANSCRIPT
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 1
Sensitivity to convective Sensitivity to convective parameterization in regional parameterization in regional
climate modelsclimate models
Raymond W. ArrittIowa State University, Ames, Iowa USA
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 2
AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments
• Zhiwei Yang• PIRCS organizing team: William J. Gutowski,
Jr., Eugene S. Takle, Zaitao Pan• PIRCS Participants• funding from NOAA, EPRI, NSF
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 3
OverviewOverview
• Survey of convective parameterizations• Sensitivity to specification of closure
parameters in the RegCM2 implementation of the Grell scheme
• Sensitivity to the choice of cumulus parameterization in regional climate simulations using MM5
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 4
Survey of some commonly used Survey of some commonly used convective parameterizations in convective parameterizations in regional modelsregional models
• Kuo-Anthes– RegCM2, RAMS, MM5
• Kain-Fritsch– MM5, RAMS (being implemented)
• Grell– RegCM2, MM5
• Betts-Miller– Eta, MM5
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 5
Survey of cumulus Survey of cumulus parameterization methodsparameterization methods
• History and variants• Mode of action:
– What is the fundamental assumption linking the grid scale and cumulus scale?
• Cloud model, trigger, etc.
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 6
Kuo-Anthes schemeKuo-Anthes scheme
• Originally developed by Kuo (1965) with refinements by Anthes (1974)
• Mode of action:– assume convection is caused by moisture
convergence (this is wrong!)– moisture convergence into a column is partitioned
between column moistening and precipitation– thermodynamic profiles are relaxed toward a moist
adiabat over a time scale
acQ
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 7
Partitioning of moisture Partitioning of moisture convergence in the Kuo schemeconvergence in the Kuo scheme
column moistening= b × moisture convergence
precipitation= (1-b) × moisture convergence
Anthes: parameter b varies (inversely) with column relative humidity
moisture convergence
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 8
Grell schemeGrell scheme
• Simplification of the Arakawa and Schubert (1974) scheme– there is only a single dominant cloud type instead of a
spectrum of cloud types
• Mode of action:– convective instability is produced by the large scale
(grid scale)
– convective instability is dissipated by the small scale (cumulus scale) on a time scale
– there is a quasi-equilibrium between generation and dissipation of instability
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 9
Grell schemeGrell scheme
• Lifting depth trigger:– vertical distance between the lifted condensation
level and the level of free convection becomes smaller than some threshold depth p
– default p = 150 mb in RegCM2 and default p = 50 mb in MM5
LFCLFCLCLLCL
pp
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 10
Kain-Fritsch schemeKain-Fritsch scheme
• Refinement of the approach by Fritsch and Chappell (1980, J. Atmos. Sci.)– the only scheme originally developed for mid-
latitude mesoscale convective systems
• Mode of action: Instantaneous convective instability (CAPE) is consumed during a time scale – makes no assumptions about relation between
grid-scale destabilization rate and convective-scale stabilization rate
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 11
Kain-Fritsch schemeKain-Fritsch scheme
• Trigger: Parcel at its lifted condensation level can reach its level of free convection– a parcel must overcome negative buoyancy
between LCL and LFC– a temperature perturbation is added that depends
on the grid-scale vertical velocity
• Detailed and flexible cloud model:– updrafts and downdrafts, ice phase– entrainment and detrainment using a buoyancy
sorting function
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 12
Entrainment and detrainment in Entrainment and detrainment in the Kain-Fritsch schemethe Kain-Fritsch scheme
negatively buoyant parcels are detrained
positively buoyant parcels are entrained
mix cloud and environmental parcels, then evaluate buoyancy
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 13
Betts-Miller schemeBetts-Miller scheme
• based mainly on tropical maritime observations, e.g., GATE– variant Betts-Miller-Janjic used in the Eta model
• mode of action: when convective instability is released, grid-scale profiles of T and q are relaxed toward equilibrium profiles– equilibrium profiles are slightly unstable below freezing
level
– basic version of the scheme has different equilibrium profiles for land and water; this can cause problems (see Berbery 2001)
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 14
QuestionsQuestions
• Within a given cumulus parameterization scheme, how sensitive are results to specification of the closure parameters?
• Within a given regional climate model, how sensitive are results to the choice of cumulus parameterization scheme?
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 15
Sensitivity to closure parametersSensitivity to closure parameters
• Perform an ensemble of simulations each using a different value for a closure parameter or parameters– must truly be an adjustable parameter; e.g., don’t vary
gravitational acceleration or specific heat– parameter value should be reasonable; e.g., convective
time scale can't be too long
• Present study: in the Grell scheme of RegCM2, varyp (lifting depth threshold for trigger)
(time scale for release of convective instability)
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 16
Closure parameter ensemble Closure parameter ensemble matrixmatrix
150 mb 125 mb 100 mb 75 mb 50 mb
7200 s
5400 s
3600 s
1800 s
600 s
p
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 17
Test casesTest cases
• Two strongly contrasting cases over the same domain:– drought over north-central U.S. (15 May -
15 July 1988)– flood over north-central U.S. (1 June - 31
July 1993)
• output archived at 6-hour intervals• initial and boundary conditions from
NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 18
Verification measuresVerification measures
• Root-mean-square error– compute RMSE at each grid point in the target
region (north-central U.S. flood area) and average
• Number of days that each parameter combination was within the 5 best (lowest RMSE) of the 25 combinations– attempts to show consistency with which the
parameter combinations perform
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 19
Flood case: RMS precipitation error Flood case: RMS precipitation error (mm) over the north-central U.S.(mm) over the north-central U.S.
150 mb 125 mb 100 mb 75 mb 50 mb
7200 s 129 108 114 113 131
5400 s 121 122 119 116 111
3600 s 122 129 121 114 115
1800 s 125 127 121 123 114
600 s 157 154 128 130 137
low values of low values of p tend to perform wellp tend to perform well
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 20
Drought case: RMS precipitation error Drought case: RMS precipitation error (mm) over the north-central U.S.(mm) over the north-central U.S.
150 mb 125 mb 100 mb 75 mb 50 mb
7200 s79 78 73 65 75
5400 s70 85 84 70 62
3600 s77 84 81 77 76
1800 s85 88 117 96 60
600 s71 62 67 57 73
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 21
Flood case: number of days for which Flood case: number of days for which each ensemble member was among each ensemble member was among the 5 members with lowest RMSEthe 5 members with lowest RMSE
150 mb 125 mb 100 mb 75 mb 50 mb
7200 s 23 21 17 13 17
5400 s 14 13 13 12 21
3600 s 7 10 8 10 20
1800 s 8 5 5 4 7
600 s 9 11 12 10 15
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 22
Drought case: number of days for which Drought case: number of days for which each ensemble member was among the each ensemble member was among the 5 members with lowest RMSE5 members with lowest RMSE
150 mb 125 mb 100 mb 75 mb 50 mb
7200 s 14 9 10 20 22
5400 s 14 12 10 12 15
3600 s 15 7 9 6 7
1800 s 5 13 8 10 16
600 s 19 14 17 12 9
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 23
Variability with different convective Variability with different convective schemes: A mixed-physics ensembleschemes: A mixed-physics ensemble
• How much variability can be attributed to differences in physical parameterizations?
• Perform a number of simulations each using different cloud parameterizations:– convective parameterization: Kain-Fritsch, Betts-
Miller, Grell– shallow convection on or off
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 24
Mixed-physics ensembleMixed-physics ensembleMean Spread
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 25
Multi-model ensemble (PIRCS-1B)Multi-model ensemble (PIRCS-1B)Mean Spread
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 26
Area-averaged precipitation in the Area-averaged precipitation in the north-central U.S.north-central U.S.
Mixed Physics Multi-Model (PIRCS 1B)
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 27
Preliminary findingsPreliminary findings• Results can be sensitive to choice of closure
parameters– best value of closure parameter varies depending on the
situation: it is not realistic to expect a single best value
• Use of different cumulus parameterizations produced about as much variability as use of completely different models:– Beware of statements such as “MM5 (RAMS, RegCM2 etc.) has
been verified...” without reference to the exact configuration!
– There may be potential for this variability to aid in generating ensemble forecasts: it is easier to run one model with different parameterizations than to run a suite of different codes
ICTP Regional Climate, 2-6 June 2003 28
Preliminary findingsPreliminary findings