Cloud convection: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
From ''Wu et al, 2007:'' | From ''Wu et al, 2007:'' | ||
<blockquote>A major difference between the GEOS-3, GEOS-4, and GISS models is the treatment of wet convection. GEOS-3 uses the Relaxed Arakawa-Schubert convection scheme [''Moorthi and Suarez'', 1992]. GEOS-4 has separate treatments of deep and shallow convection following the schemes developed by ''Zhang and McFarlane'' [1995] and ''Hack'' [1994]. The convection scheme in the GISS GCM was described by ''Del Genio and Yao'' [1993]. Unlike the GEOS models, the GISS GCM allows for condensed water in the atmosphere (i.e., condensed water is not immediately precipitated), resulting in frequent nonprecipitating shallow convection. In the wet deposition scheme, we do not scavenge soluble species from shallow convective updrafts at altitudes lower than 700 hPa in the GISS-driven model, whereas we do in the GEOS-driven model [''Liu | <blockquote>A major difference between the GEOS-3, GEOS-4, and GISS models is the treatment of wet convection. GEOS-3 uses the Relaxed Arakawa-Schubert convection scheme [''Moorthi and Suarez'', 1992]. GEOS-4 has separate treatments of deep and shallow convection following the schemes developed by ''Zhang and McFarlane'' [1995] and ''Hack'' [1994]. The convection scheme in the GISS GCM was described by ''Del Genio and Yao'' [1993]. Unlike the GEOS models, the GISS GCM allows for condensed water in the atmosphere (i.e., condensed water is not immediately precipitated), resulting in frequent nonprecipitating shallow convection. In the wet deposition scheme, we do not scavenge soluble species from shallow convective updrafts at altitudes lower than 700 hPa in the GISS-driven model, whereas we do in the GEOS-driven model [''Liu et al.'', 2001].</blockquote> | ||
== Relaxed Arakawa-Schubert scheme == | == Relaxed Arakawa-Schubert scheme == |
Revision as of 17:14, 19 February 2010
Overview
From Wu et al, 2007:
A major difference between the GEOS-3, GEOS-4, and GISS models is the treatment of wet convection. GEOS-3 uses the Relaxed Arakawa-Schubert convection scheme [Moorthi and Suarez, 1992]. GEOS-4 has separate treatments of deep and shallow convection following the schemes developed by Zhang and McFarlane [1995] and Hack [1994]. The convection scheme in the GISS GCM was described by Del Genio and Yao [1993]. Unlike the GEOS models, the GISS GCM allows for condensed water in the atmosphere (i.e., condensed water is not immediately precipitated), resulting in frequent nonprecipitating shallow convection. In the wet deposition scheme, we do not scavenge soluble species from shallow convective updrafts at altitudes lower than 700 hPa in the GISS-driven model, whereas we do in the GEOS-driven model [Liu et al., 2001].
Relaxed Arakawa-Schubert scheme
This is the convection scheme that GEOS-Chem uses with both GEOS-3 and GEOS-5 meteorology.
Hack and Zhang-McFarlane schemes
This is the convection scheme that GEOS-Chem uses with both GEOS-4 and GCAP meteorology.
Validation
References
- Allen, D.J, R.B. Rood, A.M. Thompson, and R.D. Hidson, Three dimensional 222Rn calculations using assimilated data and a convective mixing algorithm, J. Geophys. Res, 101, 6871-6881, 1986a.
- Allen, D.J. et al, Transport induced interannual variability of carbon monoxide using a chemistry and transport model, 101, J. Geophys. Res, 28,655-28-670, 1986b.
- Bey I., D. J. Jacob, R. M. Yantosca, J. A. Logan, B. Field, A. M. Fiore, Q. Li, H. Liu, L. J. Mickley, and M. Schultz, Global modeling of tropospheric chemistry with assimilated meteorology: Model description and evaluation, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23,073-23,096, 2001. PDF
- Del Genio, A. D., and M. Yao, Efficient cumulus parameterization for long-term climate studies: The GISS scheme, in The Representation of Cumulus Convection in Numerical Models, Meteorol. Monogr., 46, 181–184, 1993.
- Liu, H., et al. (2001), Constraints from 210Pb and 7Be on wet deposition and transport in a global three-dimensional chemical tracer model driven by assimilated meteorological fields, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 12,109– 12,128.
--Bob Y. 11:09, 19 February 2010 (EST)