1 / 18

Snow in Climate Models

Snow in Climate Models. Robert E. Dickinson EAS, Georgia Tech. Where from? ( climate model (CM) snow). CM does mass balance computation for water Water vapor added to atmosphere at surface Carried around by convection and winds Near saturation – makes clouds depending on CCNs

camden
Download Presentation

Snow in Climate Models

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. Snow in Climate Models Robert E. Dickinson EAS, Georgia Tech

  2. Where from? ( climate model (CM) snow) • CM does mass balance computation for water • Water vapor added to atmosphere at surface • Carried around by convection and winds • Near saturation – makes clouds depending on CCNs • Excess water after saturation removed by precipitation • Phase depends on atmospheric temperature • Ice phase atmospheric water deposited as snow

  3. Snow Mass Budget • Added by atmospheric deposition. • Removed by melting and sublimation. These depend on: • Net radiative balance • (solar and long-wave thermal (LW)) • Micrometeorological delivery of atmosphere sensible heat • Conductive coupling to underlying soil

  4. Climate model simulations • Current standard models are about 1-2 deg resolution and 20-40 layers in vertical. • Integrate many times (ensembles) over hundreds of years. • Can get down to 10s of km for fewer shorter simulations: e.g. 1 annual cycle • Alternate approaches to getting down to 10 km scale (regional climate models or variable mesh) • Cloud resolving scale models – 1 km or less contribute to understanding scaling issues

  5. Examples of snow simulation • CCSM3 – latest NSF/DOE community model. T81 (1.4 deg) atmosphere • Multiple related versions to compare with. • Interactive ocean and sea-ice - • Simulated global land precipitation (averaged by months) falls within existing data sets. • Regionally, precipitation has strong correlations with surface T. • positive for high latitude winter

  6. Northern Europe, Tibet

  7. Land is a complex surface • Consists of many difference surfaces with • Different stores of energy and water • Different radiative and micrometeorological environments. • Separate water and energy balances • Snow component is complex • Spatial variability of cover and depth. • Energy interactions with other surfaces: bare soil and vegetation

  8. Vegetation-snow interactions • Radiative and micrometerological • Micrometerology- canopy generates turbulent mixing that enhances sensible and latent fluxes from snow. • Radiative • longwave exchange (Tempc – Temps) • Solar – shadows subtract solar flux.

  9. Solar radiative forcing of snow by canopy Definitions & notation: assume unit flux normal to surface; snow albedo = α; As = fractional area covered by canopy geometric shadows; Tc = fraction of sunshine transmitted through canopy (sunflecs and diffuse). Canopy cools surface by Qcs: Qcs = As (1.-Tc) (1- α )

  10. Radiative forcing of canopy by snow • Snow heats canopy through the fraction of its reflected radiation that is absorbed by canopy, for single reflection Q sc Qsc =α Acd (1. – Tcd) (1.- Ω) The Acd = 2 As is the fraction of sky shadowed by the canopy from the surface, Tcd is the average transmission of the reflected light, Ω is the canopy ss albedo. • Sum of radiative forcing of snow by canopy (-) and of canopy by snow (+) is the total albedo reduction by the canopy from that of snow alone

  11. What is the net effect? • If lump snow and canopy energy balance together, get net warming: many papers talk about a positive feedback of vegetation on temperature through faster melting of snow. • If just look at solar, however, canopy is cooling the snow. • Net effect depends on net heating by LW and turbulence compared to cooling by solar: may go either way-not adequately treated in current climate models.

  12. Climate model snow albedo in principle α = F (λ, µ, ir, r, s, d, αg, c, g) λ = solar wavelength µ = sun angle projection (cosine) ir= ice index of refraction r = distribution of particle sizes s = distribution of particle shapes d = depth to underlying soil αg = albedo of underlying soil c = concentration/ type of contaminants g = geometry of snow surface

  13. Present snow albedo complexity α = F (λ, µ,r, c) Rationale: • Index of refraction fixed physical constant • Snow depth distribution poorly characterized can assume binary: either deep or no snow • Shapes have been approximated by spheres • Snow geometric effects have been neglected. Further simplification r, c set to values for fresh snow, assumed to correlate an “age” factor

  14. Simple modeling examples of snow radiative forcing by vegetation • Common assumptions made at times: • Leaves have a uniform distribution of orientations or are turbid scatters: makes the optical depth along path of length d simply LAD d /2 where LAD is the local leaf density. • Leaves have low albedo (near black)- true for visible: photons then scatter only once. • Uniform distribution of leaves • Uniform distribution of leaves within a geometric shape (tree or bush)

  15. Uniform leaf distribution snow forcing • Fractional area As =1.0, canopy thickness =d • Optical depth to vertical t= 0.5 d LAD = 0.5 LAI • Transmissivity to radiation incident at angle with cosine µ: • Normalize by divide by snow absorption (1. – α ) • Snow forcing Fs is then simply Fs = (1.- T ) where: T =exp (- t/µ) = 1. – t/µ + 0.5 (t/µ )2 - … (1)

  16. Snow forcing by discrete trees and bushes • Use same LAI – that is per total area – assume sparse enough to ignore mutual shadowing; taking the leaf distributions to be uniform with geometric objects gives local leaf areas as LAI/Ac and their volume averaged optical depths as t/Ac. where Ac is fractional area of object projected into direction of sun (constant for spheres); the geometric shadow As = Ac/µ for sphere object • Tree/bush snow forcing is then : Fs = (Ac/ µ )(1. – T (t/Ac)) (2)

  17. Compare spherical tree versus uniform • Need T to compare – only analytic easy for small  since the sphere transmissivity is more complicated than an exponential. By construction of the definition of optical depth, it is T(x) = 1. - x + a x2 +…where a = ? is a constant near unity so Fs = (1. – T) Ac/ µ = t /µ (1 - a / Ac…) (3) To be compared with uniform forcing Eq(1): Fs = t /µ (1- 0.5 t /µ …) (4)

  18. Conclusions • Many subgrid scale processes involving snow that can interact in climate system to produce large scale average effects (i.e. do not average out) • Climate modelers need to identify and include these – not yet very well done. • Vegetation & snow cannot simply average together. Radiative and other interactions complex. • Solar: discrete objects differ from uniform leaves- for same LAI, less radiative effect on snow (at high sun).

More Related