Climate Dynamics

, Volume 42, Issue 5–6, pp 1129–1138 | Cite as

A mass flux closure function in a GCM based on the Richardson number

Article

Abstract

A mass flux closure in a general circulation model (GCM) was developed in terms of the mean gradient Richardson number (GRN), which is defined as the ratio between the buoyancy and the shear-driven kinetic energy in the planetary boundary layer. The cloud resolving model (CRM) simulations using the tropical ocean and global atmosphere-coupled ocean–atmosphere response experiment forcing show that cloud-base mass flux is well correlated with the GRN. Using the CRM simulations, a mass flux closure function is formulated as an exponential function of the GRN and it is implemented in the Arakawa–Schubert convective scheme. The GCM simulations with the new mass flux closure are compared to those of the GCM with the conventional mass flux closure based on convective available potential energy. Because of the exponential function, the new closure permits convective precipitation only when the GRN has a sufficiently large value. When the GRN has a relatively small value, the convection is suppressed while the convective instability is released by large-scale precipitation. As a result, the ratio of convective precipitation to total precipitation is reduced and there is an increase in the frequency of heavy precipitation, more similar to the observations. The new closure also improves the diurnal cycle of precipitation due to a time delay of the large GRN with respect to convective instability.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MEST) (NRF-2012M1A2A2671775) and by the Brain Korea 21 Plus.

References

  1. Arakawa A, Schubert WH (1974) Interaction of a cumulus cloud ensemble with the large-scale environment, Part I. J Atmos Sci 31:674–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonan GB (1996) Land surface model (LSM version 1.0) for ecological, hydrological, and atmospheric studies: technical description and user’s guide. NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN-417 + STR. doi: 10.5065/D6DF6P5X
  3. Brown RG, Zhang C (1997) Variability of midtropospheric moisture and its effect on cloud-top height distribution during TOGA COARE. J Atmos Sci 54:2760–2774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chou C (2003) Land–sea heating contrast in an idealized Asian summer monsoon. Clim Dyn 21:11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ciesielski PE, Johnson RH, Haertel PT, Wang J (2003) Corrected TOGA COARE sounding humidity data: impact on diagnosed properties of convection and climate over the warm pool. J Clim 16:2370–2384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dee D, Uppala S, Simmons A, Berrisford P, Poli P, Kobayashi S et al (2011) The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Q J R Meteorol Soc 137:553–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Evans JS, Doswell CA III (2001) Examination of derecho environments using proximity soundings. Weather Forecast 16:329–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fletcher JK, Bretherton CS (2010) Evaluating boundary layer-based mass flux closures using cloud-resolving model simulations of deep convection. J Atmos Sci 67(7):2212–2225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grabowski W, Bechtold P, Cheng A, Forbes R, Halliwell C, Khairoutdinov M, Lang S, Nasuno T, Petch J, Tao WK (2006) Daytime convective development over land: a model intercomparison based on LBA observations. Q J R Meteorol Soc 132:317–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holloway CE, Neelin JD (2009) Moisture vertical structure, column water vapor, and tropical deep convection. J Atmos Sci 66:1665–1683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holtslag A, Boville B (1993) Local versus nonlocal boundary-layer diffusion in a global climate model. J Clim 6:1825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huffman GJ, Adler RF, Bolvin DT, Gu G, Nelkin EJ, Bowman KP, Hong Y, Stocker EF, Wolff DB (2007) The TRMM multisatellite precipitation analysis (TMPA): quasi-global, multiyear, combined-sensor precipitation estimates at fine scales. J Hydrometeorol 8:38–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kang I-S, Jin K, Wang B, Lau K-M, Shukla J, Krishnamurthy V et al (2002) Intercomparison of the climatological variations of Asian summer monsoon precipitation simulated by 10 GCMs. Clim Dyn 19:383–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Khairoutdinov MF, Randall DA (2001) A cloud resolving model as a cloud parameterization in the NCAR community climate system model: preliminary results. Geophys Res Lett 28:3617–3620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klemp JB, Wilhelmson RB (1978) The simulation of three-dimensional convective storm dynamics. J Atmos Sci 35:1070–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuang Z, Bretherton CS (2006) A mass-flux scheme view of a high-resolution simulation of a transition from shallow to deep cumulus convection. J Atmos Sci 63:1895–1909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Le Treut H, Li Z-X (1991) Sensitivity of an atmospheric general circulation model to prescribed SST changes: feedback effects associated with the simulation of cloud optical properties. Clim Dyn 5:175–187Google Scholar
  18. Lee M-I, Kang I-S, Kim JK, Mapes BE (2001) Influence of cloud-radiation interaction on simulating tropical intraseasonal oscillation with an atmospheric general circulation model. J Geophys Res 106:14219–14233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee M-I, Kang I-S, Mapes BE (2003) Impacts of cumulus convection parameterization on aqua-planet AGCM simulations of tropical intraseasonal variability. J Meteorol Soc Jpn 81:963–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee M-I, Schubert SD, Suarez MJ, Schemm J-KE, Pan H-L, Han J, Yoo S-H (2008) Role of convection triggers in the simulation of the diurnal cycle of precipitation over the United States Great Plains in a general circulation model. J Geophys Res 113:D02111. doi: 10.1029/2007JD008984 Google Scholar
  21. Legates DR, Davis RE (1997) The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: limitations of correlation-based approaches. Geophys Res Lett 24:2319–2322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lin Y-L, Farley RD, Orville HD (1983) Bulk parameterization of the snow field in a cloud model. J Clim Appl Meteorol 22:1065–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin X, Randall DA, Fowler LD (2000) Diurnal variability of the hydrologic cycle and radiative fluxes: comparisons between observations and a GCM. J Clim 13:4159–4179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lin J-L, Lee M-L, Kim D, Kang I-S, Frierson DM (2008) The impacts of convective parameterization and moisture triggering on AGCM-simulated convectively coupled equatorial waves. J Clim 21:883–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lorant V, McFarlane NA, Scinocca JF (2006) Variability of precipitation intensity: sensitivity to treatment of moist convection in an RCM and a GCM. Clim Dyn 26:183–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mapes BE (2000) Convective inhibition, subgrid-scale triggering energy, and stratiform instability in a toy tropical wave model. J Atmos Sci 57:1515–1535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mapes B, Houze RA (1992) An integrated view of the 1987 Australian monsoon and its mesoscale convective systems. I: horizontal structure. Q J R Meteorol Soc 118:927–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin ER, Schumacher C (2012) The relationship between tropical warm pool precipitation, sea surface temperature, and large-scale vertical motion in IPCC AR4 models. J Atmos Sci 69:185–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moeng C-H, Arakawa A (2012) Representation of boundary layer moisture transport in cloud-resolving models. Mon Weather Rev 140:3682–3698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moorthi S, Suarez MJ (1992) Relaxed Arakawa–Schubert. A parameterization of moist convection for general circulation models. Mon Weather Rev 120:978–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nakajima T, Tsukamoto M, Tsushima Y, Numaguti A (1995) Modelling of the radiative processes in an AGCM. Clim Syst Dyn Model 3:104–123Google Scholar
  32. Neggers R, Siebesma A, Lenderink G, Holtslag A (2004) An evaluation of mass flux closures for diurnal cycles of shallow cumulus. Mon Weather Rev 132:2525–2538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Neggers RA, Köhler M, Beljaars AC (2009) A dual mass flux framework for boundary layer convection. Part I: transport. J Atmos Sci 66:1465–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pan DM, Randall DD (1998) A cumulus parameterization with a prognostic closure. Q J R Meteorol Soc 124:949–981Google Scholar
  35. Ridout JA, Reynolds CA (1998) Western pacific warm pool region sensitivity to convective triggering by Boundary Layer Thermals in the NOGAPS atmospheric GCM. J Clim 11:1553–1573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schumacher C, Houze RA Jr (2003) Stratiform rain in the tropics as seen by the TRMM precipitation radar. J Clim 16:1739–1756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scinocca JF, McFarlane NA (2004) The variability of modeled tropical precipitation. J Atmos Sci 61:1993–2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sobel AH, Yuter SE, Bretherton CS, Kiladis GN (2004) Large-scale meteorology and deep convection during TRMM KWAJEX. Mon Weather Rev 132:422–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tao W-K, Simpson J, Baker D, Braun S, Chou M-D, Ferrier B, Johnson D, Khain A, Lang S, Lynn B (2003) Microphysics, radiation and surface processes in the Goddard Cumulus Ensemble (GCE) model. Meteor Atmos Phys 82:97–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tiedtke M (1984) The effect of penetrative cumulus convection on the large-scale flow in a general circulation model. Beiträge zur Physik der Atmosphäre 57:216–239Google Scholar
  41. Tokioka T (1988) The equatorial 30-60 day oscillation and the Arakawa–Schubert penetrative cumulus parameterization. J Meteorol Soc Jpn 66:883–901Google Scholar
  42. Webster PJ, Lukas R (1992) TOGA COARE: the coupled ocean-atmosphere response experiment. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 73:1377–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weisman ML (1993) The genesis of severe, long-lived bow echoes. J Atmos Sci 50:645–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weisman ML, Rotunno R (2004) “A theory for strong long-lived squall lines” revisited. J Atmos Sci 61:361–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weisman ML, Klemp JB, Rotunno R (1988) Structure and evolution of numerically simulated squall lines. J Atmos Sci 45:1990–2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Witek ML, Teixeira J, Matheou G (2011) An integrated TKE-based eddy diffusivity/mass flux boundary layer closure for the dry convective boundary layer. J Atmos Sci 68:1526–1540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Woolnough S, Slingo J, Hoskins B (2004) The diurnal cycle of convection and atmospheric tides in an aquaplanet GCM. J Atmos Sci 61:2559–2573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Xie S, Zhang M (2000) Impact of the convection triggering function on single-column model simulations. J Geohys Res 105:14983–14996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yang Z, Arritt RW (2002) Tests of a perturbed physics ensemble approach for regional climate modeling. J Clim 15:2881–2896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang GJ (2002) Convective quasi-equilibrium in midlatitude continental environment and its effect on convective parameterization. J Geohys Res 107. doi: 10.1029/2001JD001005
  51. Zhang GJ, McFarlane NA (1995) Sensitivity of climate simulations to the parameterization of cumulus convection in the Canadian climate centre general circulation model. Atmos Ocean 33:407–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhang GJ, Mu M (2005) Effects of modifications to the Zhang-McFarlane convection parameterization on the simulation of the tropical precipitation in the National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate Model, version 3. J Geophys Res 110:1–12Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Young-Min Yang
    • 1
  • In-Sik Kang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mansour Almazroui
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Earth and Environmental SciencesSeoul National UniversitySeoul 151-742South Korea
  2. 2.Center of Excellence for Climate Change Research, Department of MeteorologyKing Abdulaziz UniversityJeddahKingdom of Saudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations