models
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
models [2018/09/07 10:31] – neggers | models [2023/07/12 18:00] (current) – [DALES] modiftying text of links chylik | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
The Dutch Atmospheric Large-Eddy Simulation [[https:// | The Dutch Atmospheric Large-Eddy Simulation [[https:// | ||
- | The current version of DALES ((Heus et al. (2010). // | + | The current |
+ | * prognostic treatment of cloud condensation nuclei | ||
+ | * starting with cloud ice profiles based on observations | ||
+ | * advection of cloud ice crystals | ||
+ | |||
+ | This code development | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{ : | ||
Another activity is to implement the ED(MF)< | Another activity is to implement the ED(MF)< | ||
Line 17: | Line 24: | ||
=== Regional LES and Global climate simulation === | === Regional LES and Global climate simulation === | ||
- | We use the ICON (Icosahedral non-hydrostatic) model in two different version - the LES version ICON-LEM developed during the [[http:// | + | We use the [[https:// |
Apart from its innovative triangular grid, ICON has several advantages over existing models; in particular the combination of a non-hydrostatic core with the option of heterogeneous forcing and non-periodic boundaries creates ideal opportunities for research of scale-adaptive parameterizations. The setup allows to simulate various synoptic situations at different places and a reasonable comparison to observational data - with this the testbed-situations for parameterization development is growing and getting more variable. | Apart from its innovative triangular grid, ICON has several advantages over existing models; in particular the combination of a non-hydrostatic core with the option of heterogeneous forcing and non-periodic boundaries creates ideal opportunities for research of scale-adaptive parameterizations. The setup allows to simulate various synoptic situations at different places and a reasonable comparison to observational data - with this the testbed-situations for parameterization development is growing and getting more variable. | ||
Line 26: | Line 33: | ||
//Figure 1. An impression on the ICON-LEM simulations around the Ny Ålesund meteorological site on Spitsbergen performed by the InScAPE group. The left panels shows the set of nested simulations, | //Figure 1. An impression on the ICON-LEM simulations around the Ny Ålesund meteorological site on Spitsbergen performed by the InScAPE group. The left panels shows the set of nested simulations, | ||
- | The general circulation model version is used for developing and testing parameterizations. At the moment our focus is on the development and implementation of a PDF cloud scheme. For more information on our development of the PDF cloud scheme, see [[cloudscheme|here]]; | + | The general circulation model version is used for developing and testing parameterizations. At the moment our focus is on the development and implementation of a PDF cloud scheme. For more information on our development of the PDF cloud scheme, see [[cloudscheme|here]]; |
- | ===== SCM v2.0: LES on microgrids ===== | + | ===== Single Column Modeling (SCM) on microgrids ===== |
Single Column Modeling (SCM) is a technique in which only a single vertical column from the grid of a GCM is integrated forward in time. The boundary conditions and larger-scale forcings are prescribed, usually obtained from a larger-scale model and/or observations. The suite of subgrid-scale parameterizations of the GCM is free to act, and can create their own unique model state. This can give insight into the behavior of parameterizations at process level, and can help in understanding model biases as diagnosed in a GCM. | Single Column Modeling (SCM) is a technique in which only a single vertical column from the grid of a GCM is integrated forward in time. The boundary conditions and larger-scale forcings are prescribed, usually obtained from a larger-scale model and/or observations. The suite of subgrid-scale parameterizations of the GCM is free to act, and can create their own unique model state. This can give insight into the behavior of parameterizations at process level, and can help in understanding model biases as diagnosed in a GCM. | ||
Line 37: | Line 44: | ||
Another approach for introducing simple feedbacks between resolved and parameterized scales is to simulate a set of neighboring single column models on a small horizontal grid. While in each column the parameterized physics acts as usual, a dynamical core can then takes care of any horizontal interactions that might develop as a result of variations among the columns. The set of columns thus become interactive, | Another approach for introducing simple feedbacks between resolved and parameterized scales is to simulate a set of neighboring single column models on a small horizontal grid. While in each column the parameterized physics acts as usual, a dynamical core can then takes care of any horizontal interactions that might develop as a result of variations among the columns. The set of columns thus become interactive, | ||
- | The LES infrastructure lends itself perfectly for single column modeling | + | The LES infrastructure lends itself perfectly for SCM on microgrids, as i) it already has a fully non-hydrostatic dynamical core, and ii) it can easily be run on small grids. An additional advantage in this respect is that the LES is a lot simpler in its setup compared to a GCM, which can enhance the transparency of any numerical experiments, |
+ | |||
+ | The SCM-on-microgrids approach for developing scale-adaptive convective parameterization has recently been pioneered by InScAPE, by implementing a multi-plume | ||
+ | |||
models.txt · Last modified: 2023/07/12 18:00 by chylik