Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time in the NCAR CAM3.1

47
Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time in the NCAR CAM3.1 Ping Liu, Bin Wang International Pacific Research Center University of Hawaii Sponsored by SciDAC project, computations partly finished at SDSC Thanks to: Jerry Meehl 2007 CCSM AMWG meeting at NCAR

description

Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time in the NCAR CAM3.1. Ping Liu, Bin Wang. International Pacific Research Center University of Hawaii. Sponsored by SciDAC project, computations partly finished at SDSC Thanks to: Jerry Meehl 2007 CCSM AMWG meeting at NCAR. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time in the NCAR CAM3.1

Page 1: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time in the NCAR CAM3.1

Ping Liu, Bin Wang

International Pacific Research CenterUniversity of Hawaii

Sponsored by SciDAC project, computations partly finished at SDSCThanks to: Jerry Meehl

2007 CCSM AMWG meeting at NCAR

Page 2: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

In CAM3.1 T42L26, MJO is weak in amplitude and irregular in propagation as in CCM3 (Maloney 2001) and CAM2 (Liu et al 2005)

Page 3: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Variance of 20-80-day filtered U850 inextended winter season (NDJFMA) during 1979-2001

Page 4: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Variance of 20-80-day filtered precipitation inextended winter season (NDJFMA) during 1979-2001

Page 5: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Variance of 20-80-day filtered OLR inextended winter season (NDJFMA) during 1979-2001

Page 6: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Power spectra(10N-10S)1979-2001Winter Nov-Apr850hPa u

Page 7: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Power spectra(10N-10S)1979-2001Winter Nov-AprOLR

Page 8: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

IrregularRegression of U850

Onto 155E inExtended winter

During 1979-2001With filtered data

Page 9: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Why?• Observational studies indicate a close coupling

exists between large-scale disturbances and convection associated with MJO (Wang 1988, …)

• A precondition of moisture (or buildup) by boundary layer convergence and/or shallow convection before deep convection associated with MJO bursts (Hendon, Salby, Maloney, Sperber…)

Page 10: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Why?

• Experiments with CCM3 (Maloney 2001, Zhang 2005) and CAM2 (Liu 2005) disclose that either model with alternative convective schemes or a revised closure can simulate much improved MJO although deficiencies remain

• Consequently the convective schemes probably have flaws in 1) deep convection configuration; 2) partition of deep/shallow convection

Page 11: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Where?Basic theories in the Zhang and McFarelane

(1995) scheme for deep convection

(1) A mass flux scheme based on Quasi-Equilibrium

theory (Arakawa and Schubert 1974)

(2) Uniform mass flux at cloud base for updraft

(3) Convection is triggered wherever there is net

positive CAPE (including CIN). Or CAPE

threshold is positive (70 J/kg in code).

(4) Scheme closed on CAPE consumed exponentially

at a specified time scale (2 hours in paper, 1 hour

in code: tau=3600.).

Page 12: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Hypothesis“Convection frequently occurs pre-maturely in the CCSM2”

(Dai 2004). Add a RH threshold for triggering deep convection can enhance the precipitation variability (Zhang and Mu 2005) but not for the RAS (Maloney 2001) in CCM3. A too frequent deep convection might prevent a reasonabe partition of shallow/deep convection then moisture buildup does not occur. So

(3) Is the CAPE threshold low?

The QE theory requires

(4) the specified time for CAPE lapse too short?

s

sADJLS

5LS

43ADJ

10~ lfor typica AS74) in 154 (EQ

hours 10 ~ )1010(~ ,

Page 13: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

More evidence“Tropical atmosphere have a thermal-dynamical

background of CAPE at 1000 J/kg” – Heat engine theory by Renno (1996; reversible)

Zhang and McFarelane (1995) table

Page 14: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

LTM (1979-2001) DJFM Pseudo-Adiabatic CAPE, J/kg interval 500, thick 1500

Page 15: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Experiments

CAPE threshold: 3 and 10 times

CAPE lapse time: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 hours

Run: AMIP 1978.9 ~ 2002.8

Model: CAM3.1 T42L26

Page 16: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Results

CAPE threshold: 3 and 10 times

210, 700 J/kg

Page 17: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

LTM (1979-2001) DJFM P-A (left) and RV (right) CAPE, J/kg

Page 18: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

LTM (1979-2001) DJFM precipitation, mm/dayInterval 3, thick 9

Page 19: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1
Page 20: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Regression of U850Onto 155E in

Extended winterDuring 1979-2001With filtered data

Page 21: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Indications from CAPE threshold experiments

Lifting the CAPE threshold to 10 times as large as that in control can help the mean state and MJO to some extent, but obviously cannot significantly improve the structure of MJO.

Page 22: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Results

CAPE lapse time: 4, 6, 8, 10 hours

Page 23: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

LTM (1979-2001) DJFM Reversible CAPE, J/kg interval 200, thick 800

Page 24: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

LTM (1979-2001) DJFM Pseudo-Adiabatic CAPE, J/kg interval 500, thick 1500

Page 25: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

LTM (1979-2001) DJFM precipitation, mm/dayInterval 3, thick 9

Page 26: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

LTM (1979-2001) DJFM Reversible CAPE, J/kg interval 200, thick 800

Page 27: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Power spectra(10N-10S)1979-2001Winter Nov-Mar850hPa u

Page 28: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Power spectra(10N-10S)1979-2001Winter Nov-MarOLR

Page 29: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

MJO based on ZM8HR

Page 30: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Variance of 20-80-day filtered U850 inextended winter season (NDJFMA) during 1979-2001

Page 31: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Variance of 20-80-day filtered precipitation inextended winter season (NDJFMA) during 1979-2001

Page 32: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Variance of 20-80-day filtered precipitation inextended winter season (NDJFMA) during 1979-2001

Page 33: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Regression of U850Onto 155E in

Extended winterDuring 1979-2001With filtered data

Page 34: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Frictional convergence in a composite MJO life cycle

• Maloney (1998; 2001)

• Liu (2005)

Page 35: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

NOAA

ZM8HRFirst two EOFs of10N~10S mean filtered OLR

Page 36: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1
Page 37: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1
Page 38: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1
Page 39: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1
Page 40: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1
Page 41: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Power spectra(10N-10S)1979-2001Winter Nov-MarOLR

Page 42: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Power spectra(10N-10S)1979-2001Winter Nov-MarOLR

Page 43: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Partitioning of shallow and deep convection

Page 44: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

LTM (1979-2001) DJFM ratio of shallow convective to total precipitationInterval 10%, shaded >= 50%

Page 45: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

LTM (1979-2001) DJFM ratio of shallow (left) and deep (right) convective to total precipitation

Interval 10%, shaded >= 50%

Page 46: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Summary

. Lifting the CAPE threshold does not significantly improve MJO

. Lengthening the CAPE lapse time enhances MJO variability and improves its structure.

. The CAPE lapse time is optimal at 8 hours to simulate the MJO in both variability and structure. Frictional convergence mechanism functions from the Indian Ocean to western Pacific, which is close to observational facts. A 4:5 partition of shallow and deep convection is a key feature in this case.

. ZM8HR is an ideal starting point for further work.

Page 47: Sensitivity of MJO to the CAPE lapse time  in the NCAR CAM3.1

Future work

Local CAPE lapse time

Standard plots for ZM8HR based on AMWG packages 1 and 2, please see

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/pliu/zm8hr/1/sets.htm

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/pliu/zm8hr/2/variab.html