Full text

Turn on search term navigation

© 2016. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Abstract

As part of an international intercomparison project, the weak temperature gradient (WTG) and damped gravity wave (DGW) methods are used to parameterize large-scale dynamics in a set of cloud-resolving models (CRMs) and single column models (SCMs). The WTG or DGW method is implemented using a configuration that couples a model to a reference state defined with profiles obtained from the same model in radiative-convective equilibrium. We investigated the sensitivity of each model to changes in SST, given a fixed reference state. We performed a systematic comparison of the WTG and DGW methods in different models, and a systematic comparison of the behavior of those models using the WTG method and the DGW method. The sensitivity to the SST depends on both the large-scale parameterization method and the choice of the cloud model. In general, SCMs display a wider range of behaviors than CRMs. All CRMs using either the WTG or DGW method show an increase of precipitation with SST, while SCMs show sensitivities which are not always monotonic. CRMs using either the WTG or DGW method show a similar relationship between mean precipitation rate and column-relative humidity, while SCMs exhibit a much wider range of behaviors. DGW simulations produce large-scale velocity profiles which are smoother and less top-heavy compared to those produced by the WTG simulations. These large-scale parameterization methods provide a useful tool to identify the impact of parameterization differences on model behavior in the presence of two-way feedback between convection and the large-scale circulation.

Details

Title
Intercomparison of methods of coupling between convection and large-scale circulation: 2. Comparison over nonuniform surface conditions
Author
Daleu, C L 1 ; Plant, R S 1 ; Woolnough, S J 2 ; Sessions, S 3 ; Herman, M J 3 ; Sobel, A 4 ; Wang, S 5 ; Kim, D 6 ; Cheng, A 7 ; Bellon, G 8 ; Peyrille, P 9 ; Ferry, F 9 ; Siebesma, P 10 ; L. van Ulft 11 

 Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK 
 National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK 
 Department of Physics, New Mexico Tech, Socorro, New Mexico, USA 
 Department of Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA 
 Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA 
 Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA 
 Climate Science Branch, NASA Langley Research Centre, Hampton, Virginia, USA 
 The Department of Physics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand 
 Meteo France, Toulouse, France 
10  Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt, Netherlands; Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands 
11  Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt, Netherlands 
Pages
387-405
Section
Research Articles
Publication year
2016
Publication date
Mar 2016
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
e-ISSN
19422466
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
ProQuest document ID
2290127721
Copyright
© 2016. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.