Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

The University of Melbourne, Australia.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "The University of Melbourne, Australia."— Presentation transcript:

1 The University of Melbourne, Australia.
Gravity waves above deep convection: Modeling results showing wave breaking, secondary generation, & mixing. Todd Lane The University of Melbourne, Australia. NCAR Gravity Wave Retreat 26 June 2006

2 Important issues regarding convectively generated gravity waves.
Do we know the “true” spectrum of waves? This talk - focus on “small-scale” waves. How do these waves behave near the cloud top? When do these waves break? What are the details of the breakdown and subsequent mixing? Clusters / organized systems ~ km Individual clouds ~1-10 km

3 Vertical Velocity, 0.5 m s-1 intervals.
Fovell et al. (1992), Alexander & Holton (1997), Piani et al. (2000), Lane et al. (2001). X ~ O( 1km)  km,   N(troposphere), C 25-35 m/s Vertically propagating waves that could reach upper stratosphere and mesosphere in situations with moderate shear.

4 Vertical Velocity, 0.5 m s-1 intervals.
X ~ O( 100 m)  km  N(troposphere) C 5-15 m/s Encountering a critical level is likely. Evanescence also likely. Lane and Knievel, JAS 2005.

5 Change in momentum flux at 15 km due to resolution.
Momentum 15 km: x=2 km (solid) x=125 m (dashed) (N/m2)/ (m/s) x=2 km: < w2(10 km) > = 6 m2/s2, < u’w’(25 km) > = 0.04 N/m2 x=125 m < w2(10 km) > = 10 m2/s2, < u’w’(25 km) > = 0.02 N/m2

6 From Lane, Sharman, Clark, & Hsu, JAS 2003.
2D Breaking U(z) From Lane, Sharman, Clark, & Hsu, JAS 2003. U ~ 10 m/s will give (U-C) = 0 for downshear waves. ~5-10 km.

7 Questions raised… To date - this breaking in lower-stratosphere (in a high-resolution complete CRM simulation) has only been demonstrated in 2D. What happens in 3D? - Do waves break at same location? - 2D case should maximize breaking. 3D required to quantify turbulence and mixing - determine details of breakdown. Are these breaking waves efficient mixers?

8 3D CRM x=y=z= 150 m 674 (L) x 338 (W) x 234 (H)
100 km x 50 km x 35 km Anelastic, nonhydrostatic. Simplified microphysics - Kessler warm rain Smagorinsky turbulence. Midlatitude, real sounding case. Moderate negative shear above cloud top. (Same scenario as previous 2D cases).

9 Potential temperature (2 K intervals), t = 60 mins

10 But what does the 3D breaking look like?
Potential temperature (2 K intervals), t = 75 mins Similar pattern of breaking - breaking of downshear waves. - Less mixing in 3D But what does the 3D breaking look like?

11

12 “New” waves emanating from breaking region. - secondary waves.

13 z=15 km, t=40 mins -above convective overshoot no condensation
adiabatic qv passive tracer dqv/dz > 0 at this height  and qv in phase Pert. Pot. Temp (K) Pert. qv (ppm) X (km)

14 z=15 km, t=75 mins Pert. Pot. Temp (K) Pert. qv (ppm) At this time % average reduction in Qv on 400 K surface. X (km)

15 Summary Still a lot about the spectrum of these waves we don’t fully understand. - Spectrum in real conditions - (not idealized squall-lines). - Combined spectrum of individual clouds & clusters. 3D - Wave breaking: Many similarities to 2D case - breaking in similar locations. Breaking close to cloud top due to interaction of short wavelength (~ 5-10 km) waves with critical level. Breaking causes (what appears to be) secondary wave generation. Coherent bands of 2 km wavelength waves emanating from wave breaking region.

16 Summary (continued): Mixing: Breaking waves cause cross-isentropic transport of water vapour. This generalizes to other constituents that have vertical gradients in wave breaking region (e.g., ozone). -These waves are inefficient mixers - mixing is highly localized & vertical displacements are small ~ 200 m. Caveat: Diabatic process comes directly from sub-grid turbulence parameterization. Parameterizations have much uncertainty - and need to be better constrained (by observations and DNS).

17 Future Directions: -More real case studies. - Cloud system focus rather than individual clouds - which waves are more important? - Could be achieved with better utilization of cloud-resolving NWP(-like) models. Mixing & turbulence studies. Observations are crucial to provide reliable estimates of mixing.


Download ppt "The University of Melbourne, Australia."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google