Subject: Re: qr content
To: Sandra Yuter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 14:29:50 -0700

Can you provide me with the No, density, and fallspeed vs diameter
relations that you are using (with units incicated)? If so, I can take a
shot at deriving the beta factor for each. Off hand I don't see why they
should be so different. The No, density, and fallspeed vs diameter
relations are the only things that are different. Of course the
collection efficiencies could differ, but I can't justify anything other
than assuming they are both unity. Also, for sanity's sake, can you check
and make sure  your autoconversion formula is working right. It should be
working the same way above and below the 0 deg C level. It should get
less potent with height. Also, can you tell me what your vertical
velocity profile is? Do you assume it has a constant value at all times?

You know, what's really wrong with the class problem formulation is that
it applies only at cloud top (no precip falling into the parcel from
above).That's why we need to reformulate the problem.

Just off the top of my head--you could let this parcel be the cloud top
parcel. Then run a second parcel for which the precip falling in from
above is that computed for the cloud top parcel. This would give you a
fall-in term as well as a fall-out term for both qr and qi.

Good luck

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:11:38 -0700
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Organization: University of Washington
X-Accept-Language: en
To: Sandra Yuter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: fall in plots

These look interesting.  Now, tell me how deep is your column of
w=constant? It looks like you are letting the updraft extend all the way
up to some great height. Why not let it drop off to zero at some
reasonable height? For example, assume a parabolic profile of w with a
max at 4 km and going to zero at z=1 and 7 km.  This would knock the top
of the ice max down to something reasonable with the max ice in the
right place. This would be a much more realistic profile than w=constant
with height.