Slide 1

Impact of new ARPEGE physics on RICO case (19-sept-2006) GCSS-GPCI / BLCL-RICO 18-21 sept 2006 P. Marquet, CNRM. Toulouse. Mto-France. + ARPEGE CLIMATE & N.W.P. team + Meso-Scale CNRM team + ENM (School of Met.) + CERFACS + IPSL-LMD Slide 2 Introduction First aim of the study : Run the French Mto-France (CNRM) ARPEGE-CLIMAT SCM for the new RICO_composite (L80 and L31) Send the results for the inter-comparison : done / Pier + 4 Impact studies : Test STANDARD versus NEW physics (Turb, Conv, -Phys) ? Test of ( L80 / t = 5 mn ) versus ( L31 / t = 15 mn ) ? Impact of the explicit Top PBL entrainment ? Impact of the (Dry)-thermals ? Slide 3 The Climate ARPEGE physics : STANDARD / NEW1 / NEW2 STANDARD / V3-V4NEW1 / Mixed NEW2 / IPCC / full-Diagnostic Diag+Prog full-Prognostic TURBDIAG. Mellor-YamadaDIAG. M&YPROGN. / C.B.R. e / t = 0 e / t = 0 e / t = P + Dif Dis moist PDF / Bougeaultmoist PDF / moist PDF / Bougeault Bougeault / Bechtold Micro-PhysDIAG. PROGN. PROGN. Smith/KesslerSmith/Kessler Bulk - Lopez q_liq / q_ice q_liq / q_ice q_cloud / q_rain Shallow part in TURB, but why ?Mass-Flux Mass-Flux Convection + Mass-Flux Bougeault ?CAPE / Gueremy CAPE / Gueremy DeepMass-Flux / BougeaultMass-FluxMass-Flux ConvectionConvergence of HUCAPE / Gueremy CAPE / Gueremy Top-PBLNO YES YES EntrainmentGrenier & Breth. Grenier & Breth. Slide 4 Validation of N_low : GCM (T63-L31) Strato Cu RICO L80 / THETA_l NEW2_noent NEW2_noDTh STDNEW2 STD instable ; NEW2 better, But with a drift z>2km ? a 0.5 K bias in the PBL ? a very small impact of entr. a large impact of Dry Thermals Slide 13 RICO L31 / THETA_l NEW2_noent NEW2_noDTh STDNEW2 STD noisy ; NEW2 better, with a smaller drift z>2km ! ? a 0.5 K bias in the PBL ? a greater impact of entr. and larger impact of Dry Thermals Slide 14 RICO L80 / Zonal Wind STD NEW2NEW2_noent NEW2_noDTh STD noisy ; NEW2 better, But why these oscillations ? A small impact of ent A greater impact of Dry Thermals Slide 15 RICO L80 / Cloud Cover NEW2_noent NEW2_noDTh STD NEW2 STD very noisy !! NEW2 better, Cloud Base and Maxi OK, Drift of Cloud top theta ? A small impact of ent A large impact of Dry Thermals What about the values of C.C. ?? Slide 16 L80 L31 LES KNMI RICO / Cloud Cover Average 24h - 30h STD very noisy up to 3.5 km !! NEW2 better L80 : from 0.5 to 2.5 km : OK ; the good shape L31 : too deep cloud 0.2 to 4 km !! L31 : Large impact of Top PBL entr. ! What about the values of C.C. ?? Slide 17 RICO / Cloud Content Average 24h - 30h L80 L31 LES KNMI SAME as for CLOUD-COVER Except that values compare to LES STD very noisy up to 3.5 km !! NEW2 better L80 : from 0.5 to 2.5 km : OK ; the good shape L31 : too deep cloud 0.2 to 4 km !! L31 : Large impact of Top PBL entr. ! Slide 18 L80 LES KNMI RICO / Average 24h - 30h W/m2 K*(m/s) W/m2 L31 NEW2 L80 realistic except close to the surface !! Slide 19 NEW2 LH (W/m2)L80 NEW2 L80Cloud Cover NEW2 L80Precip. mm/day NEW2 L80LWP Slide 20 L80 LES BOMEX RICO / TKE Average 24h - 30h W/m2 m2/s2 W/m2 L31 Slide 21 Conclusions Mainly, questions ! Apart from the (internal) validation of the ARPEGE physics Why this drift above 2.5 km ? smaller with L31 / t =15 mn : w ? Are the oscillations for (u,v) Wind observed by others ? How to compare Precip & C.C. to LES or Obs. ? => Radiation ! A real interest for this RICO case ! Composite -> Long_Run ? RICO GPCI & AMMA-CI (next talk) Continue EUROCS method A deep impact of top-PBL/TURB shallow convection Small for EUROCS- Cu / large for RICO Precip ? Slide 22 RICO L31 / Cloud Cover NEW2_noent NEW2_noDTh STD NEW2 STD very noisy up to 4 km !! NEW2 better, But worse than L31 (clud base ?) A large impact of ent And larger impact of Dry Thermals Slide 23 L80 L31 LES KNMI RICO / Average 24h - 30h W/m2 (g/kg)*(m/s) Slide 24 L80 LES KNMI RICO / Average 24h - 30h W/m2 K*(m/s) W/m2 L31 Slide 25 RICO SH (W/m2) STDNEW2 STDNEW2 L80 L31 L80 Slide 26 STD NEW2 STDNEW2 RICO LH (W/m2) L80 L31 L80 Slide 27 RICO Cloud Cover STD NEW2 L31 STD NEW2 L80 Slide 28 RICO Precip. STD NEW2 STD NEW2 L31 L80 L31 Slide 29 RICO LWP STD NEW2 L31 STD NEW2 L80