slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Chip Helms PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Chip Helms

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 19

Chip Helms - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 93 Views
  • Uploaded on

Examining the Sensitivity of an Idealized Model to Changes in the Initial Potential Temperature Perturbation. Chip Helms. Background. The Idealized Model: CM1. Created by George Bryan (NCAR) 3D, non-hydrostatic, non-linear, cloud-resolving, idealized model No data assimilation

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Chip Helms' - wyome


Download Now 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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Examining the Sensitivity of an Idealized Model to Changes in the Initial Potential Temperature Perturbation

Chip Helms

the idealized model cm1

Background

The Idealized Model: CM1
  • Created by George Bryan (NCAR)
  • 3D, non-hydrostatic, non-linear, cloud-resolving, idealized model
    • No data assimilation
    • Uses a horizontally constant field for the base state
    • Adds perturbations to base state
      • e.g. warm bubble, cold blob, forced convergence
  • Benefits of using CM1
    • Conserves mass and energy better than other modern cloud models
    • Faster and uses less memory than other models for idealized studies
    • Very flexible, can be used for a large variety of studies
slide3
Goal
  • Qualitatively examine CM1 sensitivity to:
    • Initial maximum magnitude of θ'
    • Initial horizontal warm bubble radius
  • Potential implications of study:
    • Sensitivity of cloud-resolving models to temperature anomalies
      • e.g. magnitude and extent of an urban heat island
methodology

Methodology

Methodology
  • Two sets of runs to test sensitivities
sensitivity to magnitude of

Results

Sensitivity to magnitude of θ'

Composite Reflectivity

Cell split occurs earlier as θ' increases

sensitivity to warm bubble radius

Results

Sensitivity to Warm Bubble Radius

Cell split occurs earlier as radius increases

Cell splitting is related to the interaction between vorticity and updrafts

Look at updraft strength evolution

slide8

Results

Delay in reaching peak updraft strength is non-linear function of θ'

2.0 K

1.0 K

1.5 K

0.5 K

slide9

Results

Relatively low sensitivity at 7 km radius and above

Model Dispersion

2-6Δx  2-6 km radii

Relatively high sensitivity at 6 km radius and below

conclusions

Conclusions

Conclusions
  • As θ' or warm bubble radius increases, storm cell splits earlierand reaches peak updraft strength earlier
    • More sensitive to θ' than radius
  • Small warm bubble radius runs have resolution and dispersion issues
    • Impacts 5 km radius most
    • Very little sensitivity at or above 7 km
    • Suggests sensitivity is due to model dispersion
peak updraft limit

Conclusions

Peak Updraft Limit
  • Function of CAPE

CAPE = 1946

wmax= 62 m/s

  • Actual < 55 m/s
  • Difference due to assumptions of CAPE
initial background conditions

Methodology

Initial Background Conditions

Hodograph corresponds to these levels

hodograph refresher

Methodology

Hodograph Refresher
  • Trace of wind vector direction (azimuth) and magnitude (radius)
  • Straight hodographs suggest cells will split
  • Veering (backing) hodographs suggest right (left) cell will be dominant
model settings continued

Methodology

Model Settings - Continued
  • Boundary conditions:
    • Open-radiativelateral boundary conditions
    • Zero-flux top/bottom boundary conditions
  • Not included in these runs:
    • Atmospheric radiation
    • Surface drag
    • Surface fluxes
outlying model runs

Conclusions

Outlying Model Runs
  • θ' = 0.5K lags behind other runs
  • Radius = 5 km lags significantly behind other runs
    • Possibly due to turbulent mixing having a greater impact on tight gradients
      • smaller size of anomaly would be diffused faster
    • Could also be due to dampening near the 2Δx scale (recall Δx = 2 km)
detailed model settings
Detailed model settings
  • 5th order horizontal/vertical advection schemes
  • Negative moisture is corrected by taking moisture from adjacent grid cells
  • No additional artificial diffusion beyond subgrid turbulence scheme
  • Sixth order diffusion scheme (coefficient = 0.040)
  • TKE subgrid turbulence scheme
  • Zero flux boundary condition for vertical diffusion of winds/scalars at top/bottom of domain
  • Uses Rayleigh damping at upper levels (e-fold time = 1/300, applied above 14km), but not near horizontal boundaries
  • Uses Klemp-Wilhelmson time-splitting, vertically implicit pressure solver (as in MM5, ARPS, WRF), coeff for divergence damper = 0.10, slight foreward-in-time bias used for vertically implicit acoustic solver (alpha = 0.60)
  • Moisture scheme: Morrison double-moment scheme
    • Hail is used for large ice category
    • cloud droplet concentration: 250 cm^-3 (marine=100,continental=300)
  • No Coriolis force
  • Includes dissipative heating
  • No energy fallout term
  • Open-radiative lateral boundary scheme: Durran-Klemp (1983) formulation
  • Initial base-state sounding: Weisman-Klemp analytic sounding
  • Initial base-state wind profile: RKW-type profile
  • Initial pressure perturbation is zero everywhere
sensitivity to magnitude of2

Results

Sensitivity to magnitude of θ'

Composite Reflectivity

Cell split occurs earlier as θ' increases

Cell splitting is related to the interaction between vorticity and updrafts