Home


About us
PALM
PALM-4U
Installation
Release notes
Documentation
Getting Help
Gallery
Developers area

Version 7 (modified by Giersch, 8 years ago) (diff)

--

This site is currently under construction!

Cloud mircrophysics

PALM offers an embedded bulk cloud microphysics representation that takes into account the liquid water specific humidity and warm (i.e., no ice) cloud-microphysical processes. Therefore, PALM solves the prognostic equations for the total water content

\begin{align*} & q = q_\mathrm{v} + q_\mathrm{l}, \end{align*}

instead of qv, and for a linear approximation of the liquid water potential temperature (e.g., Emanuel, 1994)

\begin{align*} \theta_\mathrm{l} = \theta - \frac{L_\mathrm{V}}{c_p \Pi} q_\mathrm{l}\,, \end{align*}

instead of θ as described in Sect. governing equations. Since q and θl are conserved quantities for wet adiabatic processes, condensation/evaporation is not considered for these variables.

Liquid phase microphysics are parametrized following the two-moment scheme of Seifert and Beheng (2001,2006), which is based on the separation of the droplet spectrum into droplets with radii < 40 μm (cloud droplets) and droplets with radii ≥ 40 μm (rain droplets). The model predicts the first two moments of these partial droplet spectra, namely cloud and rain droplet number concentration (Nc and Nr, respectively) as well as cloud and rain water specific humidity (qc and qr, respectively). Consequently, ql is the sum of both qc and qr. The moments' corresponding microphysical tendencies are derived by assuming the partial droplet spectra to follow a gamma distribution that can be described by the predicted quantities and empirical relationships for the distribution's slope and shape parameters. For a detailed derivation of these terms, see Seifert and Beheng (2001,2006).

We employ the computational efficient implementation of this scheme as used in the UCLA-LES (Savic-Jovcic and Stevens, 2008) and DALES (Heus et al., 2010) models. We thus solve only two additional prognostic equations for Nr and qr:

\begin{align*} \frac{\partial N_\mathrm{r}}{\partial t} = - u_j \frac{\partial N_\mathrm{r}}{\partial x_j} - \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}\left(\overline{u_j^{\prime\prime}N_\mathrm{r}^{\prime\prime}}\right) + \Psi_{N_\mathrm{r}},\\ \frac{\partial q_\mathrm{r}}{\partial t} = - u_j \frac{\partial q_\mathrm{r}}{\partial x_j} - \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}\left(\overline{u_j^{\prime\prime}q_\mathrm{r}^{\prime\prime}}\right) + \Psi_{q_\mathrm{r}}, \end{align*}

with the sink/source terms ΨNr and Ψqr, and the SGS fluxes

\begin{align*} & \overline{u_j^{\prime\prime}N_\mathrm{r}^{\prime\prime}} = -K_\mathrm{h} \:\frac{\partial q_\mathrm{r}} {\partial x_{i}}\,\\ & \overline{u_j^{\prime\prime}q_\mathrm{r}^{\prime\prime}} = -K_\mathrm{h} \:\frac{\partial N_\mathrm{r}} {\partial x_{i}}\, \end{align*}

with Nc and qc being a fixed parameter and a diagnostic quantity, respectively.

In the next subsections we will describe the diagnostic determination of qc. From Sect. autoconversion on, the microphysical processes considered in the sink/source terms of θl, q, Nr and qr,

\begin{align*} & \Psi_{\theta_\mathrm{l}} = - \frac{L_\mathrm{v}}{c_p \Pi} \varphi_q,\\ & \Psi_{q} = \left.\frac{\partial q}{\partial t} \right|_\text{sed, c} + \left.\frac{\partial q}{\partial t} \right|_\text{sed, r},\\ & \Psi_{N_\mathrm{r}} = \left.\frac{\partial N_\mathrm{r}}{\partial t} \right|_{\text{auto}}+ \left.\frac{\partial N_\mathrm{r}}{\partial t} \right|_\text{slf/brk}+ \left.\frac{\partial N_\mathrm{r}}{\partial t} \right|_{\text{evap}}+ \left.\frac{\partial N_\mathrm{r}}{\partial t} \right|_\text{sed, r},\\ & \Psi_{q_\mathrm{r}} = \left.\frac{\partial q_\mathrm{r}}{\partial t} \right|_{\text{auto}} + \left.\frac{\partial q_\mathrm{r}}{\partial t} \right|_{\text{accr}}+ \left.\frac{\partial q_\mathrm{r}}{\partial t} \right|_{\text{evap}}+ \left.\frac{\partial q_\mathrm{r}}{\partial t} \right|_\text{sed, r}, \end{align*}

are used in the formulations of Seifert and Beheng (2006) unless explicitly specified. Section turbulence closure gives an overview of the necessary changes for the turbulence closure (cf. Sect. turbulence closure) using q and θl instead of qv and $θ$, respectively.

List of cloud physics parameters and symbols List of LPM symbols and parameters List of canopy model parameters and symbols

Diffusional growth of cloud water

The diagnostic estimation of qc is based on the assumption that water supersaturations are immediately removed by the diffusional growth of cloud droplets only. This can be justified since the bulk surface area of cloud droplets exceeds that of rain drops considerably (Stevens and Seifert, 2008). Following this saturation adjustment approach, qc is obtained by

\begin{align*} & q_\mathrm{c}=\max{\left(0, q - q_\mathrm{r} - q_\mathrm{s} \right)}, \end{align*}

where qs is the saturation specific humidity. Because qs is a function of T (not predicted), qs is computed from the liquid water temperature Tl = Π θl in a first step:

\begin{align*} q_\mathrm{s}(T_\mathrm{l}) = \frac{R_\mathrm{d}}{R_\mathrm{v}} \frac{p_\text{v, s}(T_\mathrm{l})}{p-\left(1-R_\mathrm{d}/R_\mathrm{v}\right)\,p_\text{v, s}(T_\mathrm{l})}, \end{align*}

using an empirical relationship for the saturation water vapor pressure pv,s (Bougeault, 1981):

\begin{align*} & p_\text{v, s}(T_\mathrm{l}) = 610.78 \text{Pa} \cdot \exp{\left(17.269\,\frac{T_\mathrm{l}-273.16\,\text{K}}{T_\mathrm{l}-35.86\,\text{K}} \right)}. \end{align*}

qs(T) is subsequently calculated from a 1st-order Taylor series expansion of qs at Tl (Sommeria and Deardorff, 1977):

\begin{align*} & q_\mathrm{s}(T)=q_\mathrm{s}(T_\mathrm{l})\frac{1+\beta\,q}{1+ \beta\,q_\mathrm{s}(T_\mathrm{l})}, \end{align*}

with

\begin{align*} & \beta = \frac{L_\mathrm{v}^2}{R_\mathrm{v} c_p T_\mathrm{l}^2}. \end{align*}

Autoconversion

Accretion

Self-collection and breakup

Evaporation of rainwater

Sedimentation of rainwater

Turbulence closure

Recent applications

References

  • Emanuel KA. 1994. Atmospheric Convection. Oxford University Press.
  • Seifert A, Beheng KD. 2001. A double-moment parameterization for simulating autoconversion, accretion and selfcollection. Atmos. Res. 59: 265–281.
  • Seifert A, Beheng KD. 2006. A two-moment cloud microphysics parameterization for mixed-phase clouds. Part 1: Model description. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 92: 45–66.
  • Savic-Jovcic V, Stevens B. 2008. The structure and mesoscale organization of precipitating stratocumulus. J. Atmos. Sci. 65: 1587–1605. ​doi
  • Heus T, van Heerwaarden CC, Jonker HJJ, Pier Siebesma A, Axelsen S, van den Dries K, Geoffroy O, Moene AF, Pino D, de Roode SR, Vilà-Guerau de Arellano J. 2010. Formulation of the Dutch Atmospheric Large-Eddy Simulation (DALES) and overview of its applications. Geosci. Model Dev. 3: 415–444. ​doi
  • Stevens B, Seifert A. 2008. Understanding macrophysical outcomes of microphysical choices in simulations of shallow cumulus convection. J. Meteor. Soc. Jpn. 86: 143–162.
  • Bougeault, P. 1981. Modeling the trade-wind cumulus boundary layer. Part I: Testing the ensemble cloud relations against numerical data. J. Atmos. Sci. 38: 2414–2428.
  • Sommeria G, Deardorff JW. 1977. Subgrid-scale condensation in models of nonprecipitating clouds. J. Atmos. Sci. 34: 344–355.

Attachments (8)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
  | Impressum | ©Leibniz Universität Hannover |