DYCOMS RF02 SCM Intercomparison
SCM intercomparison organizers:
Chris Bretherton and Matt
Wyant, University of Washington
Deadline for submission of revised results: 1 August 2005
Preliminary results were presented by Chris
Bretherton and discussed at BLCWG breakout of pan-GCSS meeting., Athens Greece,
16-20 May 2005. This discussion led to several small modifications to the LES
case that we are also adopting, including changed droplet conc.,
changed geostrophic winds, and specified surface heat and moisture fluxes.
Registered Participants
Please email Chris (
breth@atmos.washington.edu ) and cc Matt (
mwyant@atmos.washington.edu )
if you plan to participate. A list of participants who have already emailed that
they plan to do the case is below. Those in bold
submitted preliminary results for the Athens meeting:
- Phil Austin, U. British Columbia (paustin@eos.ubc.ca; CCC SCM)
- Andreas Chlond, MPI-Hamburg (chlond@dkrz.de)
- Hitoru Kitagawa, Japan Meteor. Agency
(kitagawa@naps.kishou.go.jp)
- Cara-Lyn Lappen, Colo. State. U. (lappen@atmos.colostate.edu; NCAR SCAM and SCAM3-UW), USA
- Vince Larson, U. Wisc.-Milwaukee, USA (vlarson@uwm.edu; Assumed PDF)
- Adrian Lock, UKMO (Adrian.Lock@metoffice.gov.uk)
- Surabi Menon, Lawrence Berkeley Natl. Labs., USA (smenon@lbl.gov)
- Stephan de Roode, KNMI (S.R.deRoode@phys.uu.nl; RACMO SCM)
Discussion and Motivation
This single column model (SCM) intercomparison is a companion to the GCSS
DYCOMS RF02 LES intercomparison, organized by Andy Ackerman of NASA-Ames.
The goal is to compare SCM simulations of a nocturnal drizzling
stratocumulus-topped boundary layer with each other, with LES simulations,
and with comprehensive observations taken during DYCOMS-II. The
RF02 LES
intercomparison web page describes the case, corresponding observations and
papers discussing them, and some minor idealizations made to facilitate
model intercomparison.
This case follows on our GCSS BLCWG intercomparison of a nocturnal
non-precipitating stratocumulus-topped mixed layer observed in DYCOMS RF01.
The intercomparison (Stevens
et al. 2005 for LES,
Zhu et al. 2005 for SCM, both accepted by Mon. Wea. Rev.) showed that
even in this particularly simple boundary layer, cloud liquid water path (LWP)
varied by almost an order of magnitude between both SCM and LES models. A
few LES models (with subgrid turbulence and advection schemes that tended to
suppress mixing across the strong inversion overlaying the stratocumulus)
did obtain approximately correct LWP for this case. However, a challenge in the
drizzling case both for LES and SCM models is sorting out the effects of
turbulent mixing and of drizzle in determining the boundary layer structure and
LWP. Another challenge for SCM models is that aerosol and cloud droplet
concentrations were lower in RF02 than RF01, favoring drizzle production. This
feedback is not represented in many SCMs. However, given the potential
importance of precipitation processes to both the mean albedo of stratocumulus
in some regions, and the second aerosol indirect ('Albrecht') effect on climate,
this is an important issue to tackle in an intercomparison format.
SCM Specifications
Setup
- Initial sounding, surface fluxes, and geostrophic wind as in LES
specifications. Upon request, I will provide an alternative wind profile based
on LES simulations if you want to specify the wind profile rather than
determine it from the geostrophic forcing.
- Mean horizontal divergence and radiation as specified in LES
specifications, which are the same as in RF01 case.
- Cloud droplet concentration of 55 cm-3, if this is an input
parameter your SCM can use. Otherwise, use your SCM's default
microphysical assumptions over the ocean. Please let us know which
of these options you are using!
- Six hour simulations
Sensitivity studies - do whichever you can.
- As with the previous SCM intercomparison, we request results with both
(HR) 10 m vertical and 5 s temporal grid spacing and (LR) a standard vertical
and temporal resolution at which the SCM or associated GCM is run.
- At each resolution, compare whichever of the following your
model can be configured to do: (PS) default precipitation microphysics, including
sedimentation, (P) default precipitation microphysics, no
sedimentation, (S) no precipitation but sedimentation included, (N)
no precipitation or sedimentation.
- Using your model's default vertical/time resolution and
microphysics (but drop conc.=55 if possible) try (C) default cumulus convection scheme and (NC) no cumulus convection
(shallow or deep).
Output (netcdf format)
- NetCDF, use self-describing file name such as HR.P.C.wyant-scalars.nc for
scalars from Wyant's hi-res SCM run with default precipitation microphysics
and cumulus convection. Use suffix -profiles.nc for hourly profiles. Variables
in the following sets are as described in
Andy's output
specs (please check you have the right dimensions for all variables!)
- Scalar time series (every timestep) of variables: {time}, {zi}, {zb}, {lwp},
{cfrac}, {shf}, {vhf}, {precip}, {ustar}. For {cfrac} use the maximum cloud
fraction obtained at any model level at that time.
- Half-hourly-average profiles: Dimensions and independent variables as in
Andy's specs: {rho}, {u}, {v}, {thetal}, {qt}, {ql}, {cfrac, {rad_flx}, {precip},
{tot_tw}, {tot_qw}, {tot_uw}, {tot_vw}, {tot_boy}, {tot_shr} If your
model does not compute all the fluxes, just do not define those profiles.
Initial flux profiles can be left undefined.