Loading…

Simulation of a Stratocumulus-Topped Planetary Boundary Layer: Intercomparison among Different Numerical Codes

This paper reports an intercomparison study of a stratocumulus-topped planetary boundary layer (PBL) generated from ten 3D large eddy simulation (LES) codes and four 2D cloud-resolving models (CRMs). These models vary in the numerics, the parameterizations of the subgrid-scale (SGS) turbulence and c...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 1996-02, Vol.77 (2), p.261-278
Main Authors: Moeng, C.-H., Cotton, W. R., Bretherton, C., Chlond, A., Khairoutdinov, M., Krueger, S., Lewellen, W. S., MacVean, M. K., Pasquier, J. R. M., Rand, H. A., Siebesma, A. P., Stevens, B., Sykes, R. I.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 278
container_issue 2
container_start_page 261
container_title Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
container_volume 77
creator Moeng, C.-H.
Cotton, W. R.
Bretherton, C.
Chlond, A.
Khairoutdinov, M.
Krueger, S.
Lewellen, W. S.
MacVean, M. K.
Pasquier, J. R. M.
Rand, H. A.
Siebesma, A. P.
Stevens, B.
Sykes, R. I.
description This paper reports an intercomparison study of a stratocumulus-topped planetary boundary layer (PBL) generated from ten 3D large eddy simulation (LES) codes and four 2D cloud-resolving models (CRMs). These models vary in the numerics, the parameterizations of the subgrid-scale (SGS) turbulence and condensation processes, and the calculation of longwave radiative cooling. Cloud-top radiative cooling is often the major source of buoyant production of turbulent kinetic energy in the stratocumulus-topped PBL. An idealized nocturnal stratocumulus case was selected for this study. It featured a statistically horizontally homogeneous and nearly solid cloud deck with no drizzle, no solar radiation, little wind shear, and little surface heating. Results of the two-hour simulations showed that the overall cloud structure, including cloud-top height, cloud fraction, and the vertical distributions of many turbulence statistics, compared well among all LESs despite the code variations. However, the entrainment rate was found to differ significantly among the simulations. Among the model uncertainties due to numerics, SGS turbulence, SGS condensation, and radiation, none could be identified to explain such differences. Therefore, a follow-up study will focus on simulating the entrainment process. The liquid water mixing ratio profiles also varied significantly among the simulations; these profiles are sensitive to the algorithm used for computing the saturation mixing ratio. Despite the obvious differences in eddy structure in two- and three-dimensional simulations, the cloud structure predicted by the 2D CRMs was similar to that obtained by the 3D LESs, even though the momentum fluxes, the vertical and horizontal velocity variances, and the turbulence kinetic energy profiles predicted by the 2D CRMs all differ significantly from those of the LESs.
doi_str_mv 10.1175/1520-0477(1996)077<0261:soastp>2.0.co;2
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_26357947</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26232704</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26232704</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-9a9c21d54f42408f2e6875d442e3fd4a81bfa446336736ff08303b11f38cd90b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkV2L1DAUhoO44DjuTxCKiOhFZ08-2qSrCOvofsDgLMx4HTJpIh3apCbpxf57U2aZC2-8yefDm5zzIHSFYYUxr65wRaAExvlH3DT1J-D8C5AaX0evYhq_khWstP9MXqDFmXyJFgBAyzzwV-h1jMd5SwVeILfrhqlXqfOu8LZQxS4Flbye8ukUy70fR9MWj71yJqnwVHzzk2vnxUY9mXBdPLhkgvbDqEIXc4YavPtdfO-sNcG4VPycBhM6rfpi7VsT36ALq_poLp_nJfp1-2O_vi8327uH9c2m1EyIVDaq0QS3FbOMMBCWmFrwqmWMGGpbpgQ-WMVYTWnNaW0tCAr0gLGlQrcNHOgSfTjljsH_mUxMcuiiNv1ch5-iJDWteMP4f0EscI0FFRl89w949FNwuQhJaI7DWECG7k6QDj7GYKwcQzfkdkkMcrYnZydydiJnezLbk7M9udve7PaPkkiQ621OXKL3z8-pmLtng3K6i-c4CrgCMWNvT9gxJh_O16TOf-LA6F9OmahP</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>232631180</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Simulation of a Stratocumulus-Topped Planetary Boundary Layer: Intercomparison among Different Numerical Codes</title><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><creator>Moeng, C.-H. ; Cotton, W. R. ; Bretherton, C. ; Chlond, A. ; Khairoutdinov, M. ; Krueger, S. ; Lewellen, W. S. ; MacVean, M. K. ; Pasquier, J. R. M. ; Rand, H. A. ; Siebesma, A. P. ; Stevens, B. ; Sykes, R. I.</creator><creatorcontrib>Moeng, C.-H. ; Cotton, W. R. ; Bretherton, C. ; Chlond, A. ; Khairoutdinov, M. ; Krueger, S. ; Lewellen, W. S. ; MacVean, M. K. ; Pasquier, J. R. M. ; Rand, H. A. ; Siebesma, A. P. ; Stevens, B. ; Sykes, R. I.</creatorcontrib><description>This paper reports an intercomparison study of a stratocumulus-topped planetary boundary layer (PBL) generated from ten 3D large eddy simulation (LES) codes and four 2D cloud-resolving models (CRMs). These models vary in the numerics, the parameterizations of the subgrid-scale (SGS) turbulence and condensation processes, and the calculation of longwave radiative cooling. Cloud-top radiative cooling is often the major source of buoyant production of turbulent kinetic energy in the stratocumulus-topped PBL. An idealized nocturnal stratocumulus case was selected for this study. It featured a statistically horizontally homogeneous and nearly solid cloud deck with no drizzle, no solar radiation, little wind shear, and little surface heating. Results of the two-hour simulations showed that the overall cloud structure, including cloud-top height, cloud fraction, and the vertical distributions of many turbulence statistics, compared well among all LESs despite the code variations. However, the entrainment rate was found to differ significantly among the simulations. Among the model uncertainties due to numerics, SGS turbulence, SGS condensation, and radiation, none could be identified to explain such differences. Therefore, a follow-up study will focus on simulating the entrainment process. The liquid water mixing ratio profiles also varied significantly among the simulations; these profiles are sensitive to the algorithm used for computing the saturation mixing ratio. Despite the obvious differences in eddy structure in two- and three-dimensional simulations, the cloud structure predicted by the 2D CRMs was similar to that obtained by the 3D LESs, even though the momentum fluxes, the vertical and horizontal velocity variances, and the turbulence kinetic energy profiles predicted by the 2D CRMs all differ significantly from those of the LESs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-0007</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1520-0477</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1175/1520-0477(1996)077&lt;0261:soastp&gt;2.0.co;2</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BAMOAD</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Boston, MA: American Meteorological Society</publisher><subject>Boundary layers ; Buoyancy ; Clouds ; Condensation ; Cooling ; Earth, ocean, space ; Exact sciences and technology ; External geophysics ; Geophysics. Techniques, methods, instrumentation and models ; Liquids ; Meteorology ; Mixing ratios ; Simulation ; Statistical discrepancies ; Turbulence</subject><ispartof>Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 1996-02, Vol.77 (2), p.261-278</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1995, American Meteorological Society (AMS)</rights><rights>1996 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright American Meteorological Society Feb 1996</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26232704$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26232704$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,58238,58471</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=3015082$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Moeng, C.-H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cotton, W. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bretherton, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chlond, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khairoutdinov, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krueger, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lewellen, W. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacVean, M. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pasquier, J. R. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rand, H. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siebesma, A. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stevens, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sykes, R. I.</creatorcontrib><title>Simulation of a Stratocumulus-Topped Planetary Boundary Layer: Intercomparison among Different Numerical Codes</title><title>Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society</title><description>This paper reports an intercomparison study of a stratocumulus-topped planetary boundary layer (PBL) generated from ten 3D large eddy simulation (LES) codes and four 2D cloud-resolving models (CRMs). These models vary in the numerics, the parameterizations of the subgrid-scale (SGS) turbulence and condensation processes, and the calculation of longwave radiative cooling. Cloud-top radiative cooling is often the major source of buoyant production of turbulent kinetic energy in the stratocumulus-topped PBL. An idealized nocturnal stratocumulus case was selected for this study. It featured a statistically horizontally homogeneous and nearly solid cloud deck with no drizzle, no solar radiation, little wind shear, and little surface heating. Results of the two-hour simulations showed that the overall cloud structure, including cloud-top height, cloud fraction, and the vertical distributions of many turbulence statistics, compared well among all LESs despite the code variations. However, the entrainment rate was found to differ significantly among the simulations. Among the model uncertainties due to numerics, SGS turbulence, SGS condensation, and radiation, none could be identified to explain such differences. Therefore, a follow-up study will focus on simulating the entrainment process. The liquid water mixing ratio profiles also varied significantly among the simulations; these profiles are sensitive to the algorithm used for computing the saturation mixing ratio. Despite the obvious differences in eddy structure in two- and three-dimensional simulations, the cloud structure predicted by the 2D CRMs was similar to that obtained by the 3D LESs, even though the momentum fluxes, the vertical and horizontal velocity variances, and the turbulence kinetic energy profiles predicted by the 2D CRMs all differ significantly from those of the LESs.</description><subject>Boundary layers</subject><subject>Buoyancy</subject><subject>Clouds</subject><subject>Condensation</subject><subject>Cooling</subject><subject>Earth, ocean, space</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>External geophysics</subject><subject>Geophysics. Techniques, methods, instrumentation and models</subject><subject>Liquids</subject><subject>Meteorology</subject><subject>Mixing ratios</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Statistical discrepancies</subject><subject>Turbulence</subject><issn>0003-0007</issn><issn>1520-0477</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkV2L1DAUhoO44DjuTxCKiOhFZ08-2qSrCOvofsDgLMx4HTJpIh3apCbpxf57U2aZC2-8yefDm5zzIHSFYYUxr65wRaAExvlH3DT1J-D8C5AaX0evYhq_khWstP9MXqDFmXyJFgBAyzzwV-h1jMd5SwVeILfrhqlXqfOu8LZQxS4Flbye8ukUy70fR9MWj71yJqnwVHzzk2vnxUY9mXBdPLhkgvbDqEIXc4YavPtdfO-sNcG4VPycBhM6rfpi7VsT36ALq_poLp_nJfp1-2O_vi8327uH9c2m1EyIVDaq0QS3FbOMMBCWmFrwqmWMGGpbpgQ-WMVYTWnNaW0tCAr0gLGlQrcNHOgSfTjljsH_mUxMcuiiNv1ch5-iJDWteMP4f0EscI0FFRl89w949FNwuQhJaI7DWECG7k6QDj7GYKwcQzfkdkkMcrYnZydydiJnezLbk7M9udve7PaPkkiQ621OXKL3z8-pmLtng3K6i-c4CrgCMWNvT9gxJh_O16TOf-LA6F9OmahP</recordid><startdate>19960201</startdate><enddate>19960201</enddate><creator>Moeng, C.-H.</creator><creator>Cotton, W. R.</creator><creator>Bretherton, C.</creator><creator>Chlond, A.</creator><creator>Khairoutdinov, M.</creator><creator>Krueger, S.</creator><creator>Lewellen, W. S.</creator><creator>MacVean, M. K.</creator><creator>Pasquier, J. R. M.</creator><creator>Rand, H. A.</creator><creator>Siebesma, A. P.</creator><creator>Stevens, B.</creator><creator>Sykes, R. I.</creator><general>American Meteorological Society</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>L7M</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19960201</creationdate><title>Simulation of a Stratocumulus-Topped Planetary Boundary Layer: Intercomparison among Different Numerical Codes</title><author>Moeng, C.-H. ; Cotton, W. R. ; Bretherton, C. ; Chlond, A. ; Khairoutdinov, M. ; Krueger, S. ; Lewellen, W. S. ; MacVean, M. K. ; Pasquier, J. R. M. ; Rand, H. A. ; Siebesma, A. P. ; Stevens, B. ; Sykes, R. I.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-9a9c21d54f42408f2e6875d442e3fd4a81bfa446336736ff08303b11f38cd90b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><topic>Boundary layers</topic><topic>Buoyancy</topic><topic>Clouds</topic><topic>Condensation</topic><topic>Cooling</topic><topic>Earth, ocean, space</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>External geophysics</topic><topic>Geophysics. Techniques, methods, instrumentation and models</topic><topic>Liquids</topic><topic>Meteorology</topic><topic>Mixing ratios</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Statistical discrepancies</topic><topic>Turbulence</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Moeng, C.-H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cotton, W. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bretherton, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chlond, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khairoutdinov, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krueger, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lewellen, W. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacVean, M. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pasquier, J. R. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rand, H. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siebesma, A. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stevens, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sykes, R. I.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><jtitle>Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Moeng, C.-H.</au><au>Cotton, W. R.</au><au>Bretherton, C.</au><au>Chlond, A.</au><au>Khairoutdinov, M.</au><au>Krueger, S.</au><au>Lewellen, W. S.</au><au>MacVean, M. K.</au><au>Pasquier, J. R. M.</au><au>Rand, H. A.</au><au>Siebesma, A. P.</au><au>Stevens, B.</au><au>Sykes, R. I.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Simulation of a Stratocumulus-Topped Planetary Boundary Layer: Intercomparison among Different Numerical Codes</atitle><jtitle>Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society</jtitle><date>1996-02-01</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>77</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>261</spage><epage>278</epage><pages>261-278</pages><issn>0003-0007</issn><eissn>1520-0477</eissn><coden>BAMOAD</coden><abstract>This paper reports an intercomparison study of a stratocumulus-topped planetary boundary layer (PBL) generated from ten 3D large eddy simulation (LES) codes and four 2D cloud-resolving models (CRMs). These models vary in the numerics, the parameterizations of the subgrid-scale (SGS) turbulence and condensation processes, and the calculation of longwave radiative cooling. Cloud-top radiative cooling is often the major source of buoyant production of turbulent kinetic energy in the stratocumulus-topped PBL. An idealized nocturnal stratocumulus case was selected for this study. It featured a statistically horizontally homogeneous and nearly solid cloud deck with no drizzle, no solar radiation, little wind shear, and little surface heating. Results of the two-hour simulations showed that the overall cloud structure, including cloud-top height, cloud fraction, and the vertical distributions of many turbulence statistics, compared well among all LESs despite the code variations. However, the entrainment rate was found to differ significantly among the simulations. Among the model uncertainties due to numerics, SGS turbulence, SGS condensation, and radiation, none could be identified to explain such differences. Therefore, a follow-up study will focus on simulating the entrainment process. The liquid water mixing ratio profiles also varied significantly among the simulations; these profiles are sensitive to the algorithm used for computing the saturation mixing ratio. Despite the obvious differences in eddy structure in two- and three-dimensional simulations, the cloud structure predicted by the 2D CRMs was similar to that obtained by the 3D LESs, even though the momentum fluxes, the vertical and horizontal velocity variances, and the turbulence kinetic energy profiles predicted by the 2D CRMs all differ significantly from those of the LESs.</abstract><cop>Boston, MA</cop><pub>American Meteorological Society</pub><doi>10.1175/1520-0477(1996)077&lt;0261:soastp&gt;2.0.co;2</doi><tpages>18</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-0007
ispartof Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 1996-02, Vol.77 (2), p.261-278
issn 0003-0007
1520-0477
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_26357947
source JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection
subjects Boundary layers
Buoyancy
Clouds
Condensation
Cooling
Earth, ocean, space
Exact sciences and technology
External geophysics
Geophysics. Techniques, methods, instrumentation and models
Liquids
Meteorology
Mixing ratios
Simulation
Statistical discrepancies
Turbulence
title Simulation of a Stratocumulus-Topped Planetary Boundary Layer: Intercomparison among Different Numerical Codes
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-30T21%3A02%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Simulation%20of%20a%20Stratocumulus-Topped%20Planetary%20Boundary%20Layer:%20Intercomparison%20among%20Different%20Numerical%20Codes&rft.jtitle=Bulletin%20of%20the%20American%20Meteorological%20Society&rft.au=Moeng,%20C.-H.&rft.date=1996-02-01&rft.volume=77&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=261&rft.epage=278&rft.pages=261-278&rft.issn=0003-0007&rft.eissn=1520-0477&rft.coden=BAMOAD&rft_id=info:doi/10.1175/1520-0477(1996)077%3C0261:soastp%3E2.0.co;2&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E26232704%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c488t-9a9c21d54f42408f2e6875d442e3fd4a81bfa446336736ff08303b11f38cd90b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=232631180&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=26232704&rfr_iscdi=true