English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
Add to Basket
  Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released
Journal Article

Performance of an Eddy Diffusivity-Mass Flux Scheme for Shallow Cumulus Boundary Layers

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons37260

Mauritsen,  T.
The Atmosphere in the Earth System, MPI for Meteorology, Max Planck Society;
Climate Dynamics, The Atmosphere in the Earth System, MPI for Meteorology, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)

2010MWR3142.pdf
(Publisher version), 3MB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Angevine, W. M., Jiang, H., & Mauritsen, T. (2010). Performance of an Eddy Diffusivity-Mass Flux Scheme for Shallow Cumulus Boundary Layers. Monthly Weather Review, 138, 2895-2912. doi:10.1175/2010MWR3142.1.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0011-F5F0-2
Abstract
Comparisons between single-column (SCM) simulations with the total energy-mass flux boundary layer scheme (TEMF) and large-eddy simulations (LES) are shown for four cases from the Gulf of Mexico Atmospheric Composition and Climate Study (GoMACCS) 2006 field experiment in the vicinity of Houston, Texas. The SCM simulations were run with initial soundings and surface forcing identical to those in the LES, providing a clean comparison with the boundary layer scheme isolated from any other influences. Good agreement is found in the simulated vertical transport and resulting moisture profiles. Notable differences are seen in the cloud base and in the distribution of moisture between the lower and upper cloud layer. By the end of the simulations, TEMF has dried the subcloud layer and moistened the lower cloud layer more than LES. TEMF gives more realistic profiles for shallow cumulus conditions than traditional boundary layer schemes, which have no transport above the dry convective boundary layer. Changes to the formulation and its parameters from previous publications are discussed.