Characterizing Convection Schemes Using Their Responses to Imposed Tendency Perturbations
Characterizing Convection Schemes Using Their Responses to Imposed Tendency Perturbations
复制标题
DOI：
10.1029/2021ms002461
复制
发表时间：
2021-01
影响因子：
6.8
通讯作者：
Y. Hwong;S. Song;S. Sherwood;A. Stirling;C. Rio;R. Roehrig;C. L. Daleu;R. Plant;D. Fuchs;P. Maher;L. Touzé‐Peiffer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Y. Hwong;S. Song;S. Sherwood;A. Stirling;C. Rio;R. Roehrig;C. L. Daleu;R. Plant;D. Fuchs;P. Maher;L. Touzé‐Peiffer
在全球气候模式中，对流通常是参数化的，不同的对流方案得到的结果往往有很大的差异。使用观测案例或直接在三维（3D）模式中比较对流方案的传统方法并不总是能够清楚地识别参数化的优点和缺点。在本文中，我们评估的参数化的各种扰动的响应，而不是他们的行为下，特别强的强迫。我们使用Kuang（2010）提出的线性响应函数方法，在理想化的辐射对流平衡条件下，使用单柱模式（SCM）模拟，比较了5个大气模式中的12个物理包。模型被迫与异常的温度和湿度趋势。温度和水分偏离平衡与云解析模型（CRM）的公布结果进行了比较。结果表明，该程序能够将对流格式的行为与其他物理格式隔离开来。我们确定的协议领域，但也有很大的差异对流计划，其中一些可以与方案设计。模型线性响应的某些方面与其RCE曲线（特别是相对湿度曲线）有关，而其他方面则构成独立的诊断。所有SCM都显示出行为的不规则性或不连续性，这可能与对流方案中使用的阈值相关机制有关，而CRM中没有出现。我们的研究结果突出了对流方案的潜在缺陷，并提出了可能的新方向，探索参数化评估。
Convection is usually parameterized in global climate models, and there are often large discrepancies between results obtained with different convection schemes. Conventional methods of comparing convection schemes using observational cases or directly in three‐dimensional (3D) models do not always clearly identify parameterization strengths and weaknesses. In this paper we evaluate the response of parameterizations to various perturbations rather than their behavior under particular strong forcing. We use the linear response function method proposed by Kuang (2010) to compare 12 physical packages in five atmospheric models using single‐column model (SCM) simulations under idealized radiative‐convective equilibrium conditions. The models are forced with anomalous temperature and moisture tendencies. The temperature and moisture departures from equilibrium are compared with published results from a cloud‐resolving model (CRM). Results show that the procedure is capable of isolating the behavior of a convection scheme from other physics schemes. We identify areas of agreement but also substantial differences between convection schemes, some of which can be related to scheme design. Some aspects of the model linear responses are related to their RCE profiles (the relative humidity profile in particular), while others constitute independent diagnostics. All the SCMs show irregularities or discontinuities in behavior that are likely related to threshold‐related mechanisms used in the convection schemes, and which do not appear in the CRM. Our results highlight potential flaws in convection schemes and suggest possible new directions to explore for parameterization evaluation.