1 / 17

A new physics package for the next version of MIROC

A new physics package for the next version of MIROC. Masahiro Watanabe CCSR, University of Tokyo hiro@ccsr.u-tokyo.ac.jp. May 27, 2008. Team “MIROC-physics” in KAKUSHN project S. Watanabe 1 , T. Takemura 2 , M. Chikira 1 , T. Ogura 3 , T. Mochizuki 1 ,

adonelson
Télécharger la présentation

A new physics package for the next version of MIROC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A new physics package for the next version of MIROC Masahiro Watanabe CCSR, University of Tokyo hiro@ccsr.u-tokyo.ac.jp May 27, 2008 Team “MIROC-physics” in KAKUSHN project S. Watanabe1, T. Takemura2, M. Chikira1, T. Ogura3, T. Mochizuki1, K. Sudo4, T. Nishimura1, M. Watanabe5, S. Emori3, and M. Kimoto5 1: FRCGC/JAMSTEC, 2: RIAM/Kyushu Univ, 3: NIES, 4: Nagoya Univ, 5: CCSR/Univ of Tokyo

  2. Climate change simulation by MIROC3.2 @ AR4 Global mean SAT – change from the end of 18th century Anthropogenic forcing Only Full forcing (Natual + Anthropogenic) Year Year Global mean SAT anomaly (oC) Global mean SAT anomaly (oC) No forcing Natural forcing Only (Solar + Volcano) Year Year Observation Model ensemble mean

  3. Further development of MIROC • MIROC3.2 has presented as good ability as other state-of-the-art CGCMs in simulating climate and its variability • Why we need to update it? • We know the model still contains large uncertainty (model is tunable even if it generates realistic climate) • Forthcoming CGCMs must be more robust as higher accuracy will be required in AR5 • Clouds might be the key

  4. Atmospheric component of MIROC MIROC3.2 MIROC4.1

  5. C-qcrelationship cloud fraction cloud water [g/kg] C-qcrelationship Basis PDFs (varying skewness) HPC-DU HPC-ST cloud fraction cloud water [g/kg] Hybrid prognostic cloud (HPC) scheme • Large-scale condensation (LSC) • Assume a subgrid-scale distribution of qt’ or s=aL(qt’-aLTl’) ? • Predict condensate amount and cloud? • Prognostic equations for PDF variance & skewness • Quasi-reversible operator between grid quantities & PDF Tompkins (2005) Similar approach: Tompkins (2002, JAS) Wilson & Gregory (2003, QJ)

  6. Single column model test • A-S, prognostic cloud scheme + simple cloud physics • 12hr integration from Weisman & Klemp (1982) profile Cloud mass flux Variance & skewness anvil S > 0 Cf Mc V Precipitation rate qc&qi convective ice cloud stratiform cumulus detrainment ⇒ V, S+ precipitation/snowfall ⇒ S- 0 1 2 3 4 [hr]

  7. PDF variance PDF variance Snapshot ofqcat hour 96 in NICAM GCRM 8.3km 835m Cloud water at z=835m AGCM 8.3km 835m 6400 points on avg. in a T42 grid diagnosis for the PDF moments How can we verify predicted PDF moments? Comparison w/ GCRM: 1-week integration from Dec. 25, 2006 • GCRM (named NICAM) w/ 3.5km grid, realistic topography • MIROC atmosphere w/ T42 Collaboration with NIES

  8. Improvement with HPC Annual-mean low cloud ISCCP AGCM HPC AGCM HPC-ORG Annual-mean cloud water & cloud fraction along 10°S ORG HPC Watanabe et al. (2008) * Low-cloud is yet insufficient over continents * Better representation of low clouds over the cold tongue

  9. Annual mean PBL height [m] Lev2.0 Lev2.5 Diff. Higher-order turbulence closure work done by M. Chikira (FRCGC) From Level 2.0 (Mellor-Yamada 1982) to Level 2.5/3.0 (Nakanishi-Niino 2004) • Evaluation of MLS locally • (changing in space and in time) • Advection of TKE and other turbulent variables • Coupling with cloud scheme Zonal and annual mean master length scales Lev2.0 Lev2.5

  10. Higher-order turbulence closure work done by M. Chikira (FRCGC) 850hPa specific humidity • MIROC3.2 has suffered from • a low-level dry bias • <- insufficient mixing Annual mean clim. Bias Lev2.0 • Predicting TKE significantly • improves the boundary layer • structure • -> reduced the dry bias Lev2.5 • Turbulent variance/covariance • can directly be used for predicting • subgrid-scale PDF variance • -> tighter coupling between • turbulence & cloud processes ERA40

  11. Cloud microphysics in MIROC4.1 Wilson and Ballard (1999) Sophisticated ice-cloud microphysics work done by T. Ogura (NIES) Cloud microphysics in MIROC3.2 Cloud liquid/ice fraction Cloud liquid/ice fraction • In MIROC3.2 climate • sensitivity has largely • been affected by • a parameter for cloud • liquid/ice partition Airborne measurements Ice ΔT2x=6.3K ΔT2x=4.0K Liquid Rotstayn et al. (2000)

  12. ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ cloud ice mixed-phase ice/liquid melting layer ＊ ＊ ＊ ● ● ● cloud liquid ● ● ● ● Coupling HPC-ice microphysics with cumuli MSE & total water budgets in A-S -> vapor, liquid and ice partitioned inside the cumulus with reference to temperature and saturation deficit in the cumulus tower ice nucleation/deposition/fallout change in the PDF variance and skewness any type of cloud fraction is then calculated with HPC

  13. qv 850hPa Dec-Feb clim. bias qv 850hPa Dec-Feb clim., MIROC4.1 NEW ORG [kg/kg] Preliminary model performance T42L20 Atmos. + 0.5x1.4deg Ocean (corresponding to MIROC-mid)

  14. Preliminary model performance T42L20 Atmos. + 0.5x1.4deg Ocean (corresponding to MIROC-mid) Annual-mean precipitation Obs NEW ORG

  15. Preliminary model performance T42L20 Atmos. + 0.5x1.4deg Ocean (corresponding to MIROC-mid) SST Dec-Feb climatology bias SST Dec-Feb climatology, MIROC4.1 NEW ORG [K]

  16. SST interannual variability 100E 60W Preliminary model performance T42L20 Atmos. + 0.5x1.4deg Ocean (corresponding to MIROC-mid) Annual-mean tx & subsurface T NEW ORG Obs 100E 60W

  17. Summary Major part of the atmospheric physics schemes was renewed in MIROC4.1 • From diagnostic to prognostic schemes • Stronger coupling between subgrid-scale processes • Better representation of climatology, variability and climate sensitivity? Yes, we do hope so! Concerns: characteristic timescale and difficulty in deriving diagnostic equations Concerns: physical consistency, but errors in one scheme may be distributed

More Related