1 / 33

NMMB results for Test case 1: Dry baroclinic wave instability (DCMIP 4-1-X test)

NMMB results for Test case 1: Dry baroclinic wave instability (DCMIP 4-1-X test) Vladimir Djurdjevic , Zavisa Janjic , Ratko Vasic NCEP June 2014 High Impact Weather Prediction Project (HIWPP). Dry baroclinic instability test concept and initial condition

vito
Télécharger la présentation

NMMB results for Test case 1: Dry baroclinic wave instability (DCMIP 4-1-X test)

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. NMMB results for Test case 1: Dry baroclinic wave instability (DCMIP 4-1-X test) Vladimir Djurdjevic, ZavisaJanjic, RatkoVasic NCEP June 2014 High Impact Weather Prediction Project (HIWPP)

  2. Dry baroclinic instability test concept and initial condition • Test the response of 3D atmospheric models to a controlled evolving instability (Jablonowski 2004; Jablonowski and Williamson 2006). • The balanced initial flow field comprises a zonally symmetric basic state with jet in mid-latitudes of each hemisphere and a quasi-realistic temperature distribution. • Local nonperiodic perturbation of zonal wind is defined in mid-latitudes. • Pressure at the model top ~2.26hPa

  3. NMMB runs: • Preparation of experiment initial conditions for model grid, • Exclusion of model physics, • Transition to double precision arithmetic, (Thanks to DusanJovic and Tom Black) • Preparation of output data in NetCDF format, • 8 different experiment setups, • 4 horizontal and 2 vertical resolution (dx = 1o, 0.5o, 0.25o and 0.125o; LM=30 and 60) • We decided to run all experiments with 2, different diffusion setup (low and high), • In total 16 runs

  4. Resolution 1o, LM30

  5. Since there is no analytical solution of the problem, results of other models can be used to check results. • Minimum surface pressure • after day 9 (DCMIP2012) • From 940 to 960 mb • IFS close to 960 mb • Grid imprinting visible • in results of “cube” and • “hexagon” models.

  6. NMMB Surface pressure after day 9 1o/L30 Low-diffusion run (PSmin ~940) Hi-diffusion run (PSmin ~960)

  7. NMMB 850mb Vorticity after day 9 1o/L30 Low-diffusion run Hi-diffusion run

  8. NMMB: surface pressure - day 15 1o/L30 Low-diffusion run Hi-diffusion run Faster growth of induced perturbation on SH in hi-diffusion run.

  9. Transfer of perturbation to Southern hemisphere Perturbations are introduced into the Southern Hemisphere by truncation errors and by gravity waves which arise from the geostrophic adjustment associated with the imposed unbalanced perturbation in the Northern Hemisphere and which propagate into the Southern Hemisphere (Jablonowski and Williamson 2006). NMMB: Surface pressure after day 1 (1o/L30)

  10. NMMB: surface pressure – day 20 1o/L30 Low-diffusion run Hi-diffusion run

  11. Convergence of solution with increasing resolution

  12. Temperature 850mb DAY 9 DAY 12 DAY 15 1o 0.5o 0.125o

  13. Relative vorticity 850mb DAY 9 DAY 12 DAY 15 1o 0.5o 0.125o

  14. Surface pressure DAY 6 DAY 12 DAY 15 1o 0.5o 0.125o

  15. Comparison with two participating models in HWIPP project

  16. Comparison with FV3 and MPAS, Surface pressure DAY 9 (1o/L30) Evolution of minimum surface pressure 100km NMMB Surface pressure (mb) FV3 MPAS Days

  17. Comparison with FV3 and MPAS, Surface pressure (1o/L30) DAY 15 DAY 20 NMMB FV3 MPAS

  18. Grid-imprinting on cubed-sphere and hexagon-pentagon grids “cube” “hexa” 4 corners per hemisphere 6 pentagons per hemisphere, 1 on the pole and 5 in mid-lats

  19. NMMB Surface pressure DAY 20 South Hemisphere (1o/L30) FV3 MPAS

  20. NMMB Temp 850mb DAY 20 South Hemisphere (1o/L30) FV3 MPAS

  21. NMMB Relative vorticity 850mb DAY 20 South Hemisphere (1o/L30) FV3 MPAS

  22. NMMB Temp 30 mb DAY 20 South Hemisphere (1o/L30) FV3 MPAS

  23. NMMB Relative vorticity 10 mb DAY 20 South Hemisphere (1o/L30) FV3 MPAS

  24. NMMB FV3 1o/L60 0.125o/L30

  25. Imprint visible after 24h integration (FV3)

  26. Problem (error) of grid imprinting is present in all variables, on all levels and in all different resolution setups, and becomes more visible as integration progresses. • Presumably problem is hard-coded in the grid geometry. • Imprint is wave-number 4 and 5 so that lateral diffusion is ineffective. • Question? • How to control, remove or extract error from solution especially during longer integrations (medium, monthly, seasonal, climate scale)?

  27. Results in stratosphere

  28. Results for stratosphere, Vorticity at 10mb DAY 20 DAY 15 (1o/L30) NMMB FV3 MPAS

  29. Third breaking wave: day 15 and 16

  30. DAY 16 DAY 15 1o/L30 NMMB FV3 MPAS

  31. DAY 16 DAY 15 1o/L30 NMMB 0.125o/L30 NMMB FV3

  32. Conclusions • After initial model setup all experiments went smoothly without any computational problem, • Test results were according to expectations and compare favorably with other known results, • The solutions are tunable by diffusion, • Results converge with resolution, • No grid-imprinting, • No excessive noise, • NMMB scientific foundation is sound.

  33. Thank you

More Related