impact of new arpege physics on rico case
DESCRIPTION
GCSS-GPCI / BLCL-RICO 18-21 sept 2006. Impact of new ARPEGE physics on RICO case. P. Marquet, CNRM . Toulouse . Météo-France. (19-sept-2006). + ARPEGE CLIMATE & N.W.P. team + Meso-Scale CNRM team + ENM (School of Met.) + CERFACS + IPSL-LMD …. Introduction. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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