1 / 97

Convectively Forced Gravity Wave Drag GWD C in the CFS and GFS

Convectively Forced Gravity Wave Drag GWD C in the CFS and GFS. Åke Johansson. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. Hye-Yeong Chun Jong-Jin Baik In-Sun Song Suranjana Saha Shrinivas Moorthi Hua-Lu Pan Jordan Alpert Huug van den Dool Mark Iredell. OUTLINE. Theory by Chun and Baik 1998

Olivia
Download Presentation

Convectively Forced Gravity Wave Drag GWD C in the CFS and GFS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Convectively ForcedGravity Wave DragGWDCin the CFS and GFS Åke Johansson

  2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Hye-Yeong Chun Jong-Jin Baik In-Sun Song Suranjana Saha Shrinivas Moorthi Hua-Lu Pan Jordan Alpert Huug van den Dool Mark Iredell

  3. OUTLINE • Theory by Chun and Baik 1998 • Parameterization proposed by Chun and Baik 1998 • Climate runs with CFS • Data Assimilation and Week-1 runs with GFS • Conclusions • Suggestions

  4. Theory by Chun and Baik 1998

  5. 2-Dimensional x-z Steady-state Non-rotating Hydrostatic Inviscid Boussinesq Linearized – Small perturbations U, N Constant with x and z 0 ; Orographic Forcing Convective Forcing

  6. U = 15 m/s N = 0.007 s-1 Zb = 1.5 km Zt = 11 km a1 = 10 km a2 = 5 a1 To = 273 K Qo = 1 J/kg/s w u

  7. F = -U M Fz = -Uz M

  8. F = -U M M F

  9. F = -U M M F H L

  10. Parameterization proposed by Chun and Baik 1998

  11. STEP 1

  12. c1 c2 a1 = αΔx c1 = 1.41 c2 = - 0.38 α = 0.1

  13. V Vct Essentially 1-dimensional in the horizontal plane

  14. STEP 2

  15. Wave breaking Reduction of Momentum Flux M F

  16. Lindzen’s Saturation Hypothesis If Reduce wave amplitude so that Ri = ¼ Gives new reduced

  17. Main Reasons for Wave braking Stress Reduction Momentum deposition • Critical levels • Low wind speeds • Low density

  18. Climate runs with CFS SET22 T126L64

  19. Yonsei Univ GCM 2001 4° x 5° ( lat x lon ) Δx ~ 445 Km 15 Layers Top a 1 hPa Perpetual July AMIP integrations for 360 days Last 90 day averages are considered With vs Without GWDC α = 0.4 Encouraging Results NCAR CCM3 2004 T42 Δx ~ 315 Km 18 Layers Top a 2.5 hPa Perpetual January and July AMIP integrations for 3 yrs Last 2 yrs averages are considered With vs Without GWDC α < 0.16 Encouraging Results

  20. CFS Experiments T126L64 Δx ~ 106 Km Top at 0.2 hPa SET22 = Operational CFS + Several updates New Shortwave radiation: Hourly + RRTM1 Longwave Radiation: Hourly + RRTM Realistic CO2 Maximum-random cloud overlap ESMF 3.0.1 Enthalpy equation

  21. Observational and Simulation Data Sets

  22. Two GWDC Experiments Two different ways in which the momentum compensation within the cloud is distributed

  23. CONTROL EXPERIMENT

  24. QBO

  25. CFS have no QBO

  26. Extreme Negative and Positive Anomalies Stratospheric Polar Night Jet 1971-2000

  27. GWDC EXPERIMENT

  28. 3 2 1

  29. DJF GWDC1 1/10 Contour interval

  30. DJF GWDC1

More Related