blphysics Dan Harnos Jessica Colberg Joseph Ching Michelle
bl_physics Dan Harnos, Jessica Colberg, Joseph Ching, Michelle Pitcel
Scheme options • Option 1: YSU (Control) – Prognostic: none – Diagnostic: exec_h – Cloud mixing: QC, QI • Option 0: No PBL scheme • Option 5: MYNN 2 – Prognostic: QKE – Diagnostic: Tsq, Qsq, Cov, exch_h, exch_m – Cloud mixing: QC
r (more mixing occurs) with boundary layer physics included. eating should induce mixing of the boundary layer inimal mixing occurs
• Temperature appears to be independent of the scheme • Minimal differences appear with the varying model set
• Scheme 5 has the most definite layers of humidity betw • Much more variation, although it seems this shoul • This may be better handled by scheme 1
• Vertical motion seems to vary minimally between all th • Minimal differences appear with the varying model set
PBL Scheme flux comparisons • Different – Net ground heat flux – Downward LW flux at surface – Upward LW flux at TOA – Upward sensible heat flux at surface – Upward latent heat flux at surface – Upward LW flux at Surface • Identical – Downward SW flux at surface – Upward SW flux at TOA – Downward SW flux at TOA – Upward SW flux at surface – Downward LW flux at TOA (zero)
Conclusions • Both PBL schemes show realistic boundary layer development with minimal differences. – No PBL scheme captures surface reasonably well, although BL features lack depth. – Diurnal cycle and temporal spacing captured well across all. • Selection of PBL scheme dependent upon your simulation – If ice in BL use option 1, etc.
Supplemental Content
- Slides: 20