1. The scheme: A short intro Some relevant case results Why a negative feedback? EDMF-DualM results for the CFMIP-GCSS intercomparison case: Impacts of a SST perturbation on updraft transport Roel Neggers, Pier Siebesma CFMIP-GCSS meeting, UBC Vancouver, 8-12 June 2009

2. Combining the diffusive and advective models in the parameterization of the turbulent-convective flux: The Eddy Diffusivity Mass Flux (EDMF) approach Transporting updraft K diffusion AKAK A up Applicable to well-mixed layers: Implemented in: ECMWF IFS KNMI RACMO etc. The single updraft limit of EDMF

3. * The single transporting updraft of EDMF is further partitioned into a dry updraft and a moist (condensed) updraft The dual updraft limit of EDMF: shallow cumulus Dry updraft Moist updraft K diffusion a u1 a u2 AKAK A up Flexible area partitioning * Continuous (flexible) updraft area partitioning is applied, as a function of moist convective inhibition at cloud base Test parcel * A non-transporting extreme test parcel is included to provide information about the variance amongst updrafts

4. * Reconstructing a double PDF in conserved variable space Extending EDMF into the statistical modelling of clouds Moist updraft PDF: tied to the test parcel and moist parcel Diffusive PDF: residual of diagnostic variance budget and moist updraft PDF Moist parcel Test parcel x x The Dual Mass flux scheme, Part I: Transport. Neggers et al. (JAS, 2009, vol. 66, 1465-1489) Part II: Clouds. Neggers (JAS, 2009, vol. 66, 1490-1506)

5. Why two updrafts?  One scheme fits all: 1 updraft 2 updrafts

6. Submitted version of EDMF-DualM for CFMIP-GCSS Developed for the ECMWF Integrated Forecasting System (IFS) Status: Implementation completed, now in test phase (scores optimalization) K diffusion model: * K-profile method for the well-mixed layer * Explicit flux at mixed-layer top * Ri-diffusion in the cloud layer and at cloud top StCu triggering criterion (single moist updraft mode): * LTS (as in operational IFS) SCM code details: * IFS/RACMO version CY31R1 * Native deep convection scheme switched off: EDMF-DualM scheme does all convective transport

7. Case results - Cloud fraction S6S11S12 S12: Stable equilibrium, single well-mixed layer S11: Stable equilibrium, decoupled S6: After an initial shallow cu period, the scheme tries to ‘go deep’ (updraft rain disturbes mixed layer, causing oscillation)

8. (Albrecht 1996) S6S11 S12 Where do our simulations sit in the transition?

9. Humidity structure S6: fair weather cu (very weak inversion) S11: decoupledS12: well mixed +2K SST: PBL depth increases

10. Cloud fraction – EDMF contributions S6S11S12 +2K SST: Total cloud fraction doesn’t change much (no discrete regime change) LCL unchanged for the cumulus regimes S6 and S11

11. Cloud condensate – EDMF contributions S6S11S12 +2K SST: Condensate on the diffusive PDF increases for S11 and S12 Deeper condensate layer in S6 (carried by upraft PDF)

12. Cloud-radiative impacts Why?

13. Surface heat fluxes The surface buoyancy forcing remains more or less unchanged

14. Boundary fluxes act on the jumps A bulk mixed-layer interpretation: qsat(SST) and q+ qt+qt+ q sat (SST) q t PBL Top entrainment flux Surface evaporation q z Inversion jump Surface jump

15. +2K SST: q sat (SST) changes much more than q t +

16. qt+qt+ q sat (SST) q t PBL Control +2K SST Top entrainment flux Evaporation Both jumps increase: The new equilibrium is associated with stronger fluxes at the boundaries

17. Impacts of increased surface evaporation on the EDMF transporting updrafts Through the updraft initialization scheme, a stronger E leads to larger updraft initial q t excesses As a result, the total updraft q t flux increases variance updraft fraction

18. The updrafts are efficient in transporting moisture upwards to the top of the PBL This favors capping cloud formation if the inversion remains strong enough

19. Summary The negative cloud-climate feedback in EDMF-DualM seems related to the increase in surface evaporation Through the updraft initialization scheme, the enhanced evaporation leads to increased updraft initial humidity excesses. This extra humidity is efficiently transported by the updrafts to the PBL top, which favors the buildup of condensate in the capping cloud layer The PBL updrafts do not get more energetic; they just carry more humidity around Remaining question: how and why does the top entrainment flux in the model change? General remark: In studying feedbacks of PBL clouds on climate, the change in free tropospheric humidity is as important as the change in SST Should we try some experiments with a different change in q t + ?