Top Banner
© Crown copyright Met Office Some thoughts on s12 stratocumulus feedback Adrian Lock EUCLIPSE WP3 meeting, Toulouse, April 2012
15

© Crown copyright Met Office Some thoughts on s12 stratocumulus feedback Adrian Lock EUCLIPSE WP3 meeting, Toulouse, April 2012.

Mar 31, 2015

Download

Documents

Cory Wotton
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: © Crown copyright Met Office Some thoughts on s12 stratocumulus feedback Adrian Lock EUCLIPSE WP3 meeting, Toulouse, April 2012.

© Crown copyright Met Office

Some thoughts on s12 stratocumulus feedback

Adrian LockEUCLIPSE WP3 meeting, Toulouse, April 2012

Page 2: © Crown copyright Met Office Some thoughts on s12 stratocumulus feedback Adrian Lock EUCLIPSE WP3 meeting, Toulouse, April 2012.

© Crown copyright Met Office© Crown copyright Met Office

Page 3: © Crown copyright Met Office Some thoughts on s12 stratocumulus feedback Adrian Lock EUCLIPSE WP3 meeting, Toulouse, April 2012.

© Crown copyright Met Office© Crown copyright Met Office

Page 4: © Crown copyright Met Office Some thoughts on s12 stratocumulus feedback Adrian Lock EUCLIPSE WP3 meeting, Toulouse, April 2012.

© Crown copyright Met Office

Subsidence pdfs: HadGEM2 vs CGILS

s11

s12

Mean w unchanged

Page 5: © Crown copyright Met Office Some thoughts on s12 stratocumulus feedback Adrian Lock EUCLIPSE WP3 meeting, Toulouse, April 2012.

© Crown copyright Met Office

Why do the LES robustly show a significant positive feedback at s12 when subsidence unchanged?

Page 6: © Crown copyright Met Office Some thoughts on s12 stratocumulus feedback Adrian Lock EUCLIPSE WP3 meeting, Toulouse, April 2012.

© Crown copyright Met Office

Why the positive feedback at s12 with subsidence kept constant?

• Robust changes with +2K:

1) Cloud is warmer → greater upward LW flux at cloud top → more cloud-top cooling → more entrainment → thinner cloud?

• Actually find downward LW flux increases too and balances almost exactly → cloud-top cooling unchanged

Page 7: © Crown copyright Met Office Some thoughts on s12 stratocumulus feedback Adrian Lock EUCLIPSE WP3 meeting, Toulouse, April 2012.

© Crown copyright Met Office

Why the positive feedback at s12 with subsidence kept constant?

• Robust changes with +2K:

1) Cloud is warmer → greater upward LW flux at cloud top → more cloud-top cooling?

• Actually find downward LW flux increases too and balances almost exactly → cloud-top cooling unchanged

2) Surface LH flux increases (assuming unchanged RH, U, T1-Tsurf):

LHF = ch(q1-qsat(Tsurf)) ~ ch(RH1qsat(T1)-qsat(Tsurf))

3) Δq more negative (larger RH in the PBL dominates larger dqsat/dT in warm free atmosphere):

(2)+(3) → if entrainment rate unchanged, expect stronger LH fluxes throughout PBL:

0

dT

dqRH

dT

dqRH

dT

qd PBLsatPBL

FAsatFA

LH flux

Page 8: © Crown copyright Met Office Some thoughts on s12 stratocumulus feedback Adrian Lock EUCLIPSE WP3 meeting, Toulouse, April 2012.

© Crown copyright Met Office

Impact of enhanced LH fluxes

• Buoyancy flux = α wθl + β wqT

• wqT term is most important in the cloud layer (where β is much larger)

• Larger wqT → larger buoyancy flux → more turbulent PBL → more entrainment of dry air → thinner cloud → positive cloud feedback

• Do the steps of this argument hold up?

Page 9: © Crown copyright Met Office Some thoughts on s12 stratocumulus feedback Adrian Lock EUCLIPSE WP3 meeting, Toulouse, April 2012.

© Crown copyright Met Office

LH flux – entrainment feedback?

• Larger wqT → larger buoyancy flux → more turbulent PBL → more entrainment of dry air → thinner cloud → positive cloud feedback

• “… → more entrainment of dry air…” should also → deeper PBL (given identical subsidence)

• but cloud-top drops → less entrainment!

Page 10: © Crown copyright Met Office Some thoughts on s12 stratocumulus feedback Adrian Lock EUCLIPSE WP3 meeting, Toulouse, April 2012.

© Crown copyright Met Office

LH flux – entrainment feedback?MetO LEM fluxes after 3 days

• LH flux still larger throughout PBL, despite lower inversion (larger Δq must dominate reduced we)

• Buoyancy flux weaker (consistent with reduced we)

• But why reduced we, to less than in the control?

Page 11: © Crown copyright Met Office Some thoughts on s12 stratocumulus feedback Adrian Lock EUCLIPSE WP3 meeting, Toulouse, April 2012.

© Crown copyright Met Office

Initial adjustment

• Entrainment is larger initially (<first 6 hours), driven by larger buoyancy flux, as expected

• → cloud thins (+ve feedback), as expected

• BUT cloud becomes optically thinner in LW too:

→ reduced LW cloud-top cooling

→ reduced buoyancy flux

→ reduced turbulence

→ reduced entrainment

→ cloud-top falls back (relative to control)

Page 12: © Crown copyright Met Office Some thoughts on s12 stratocumulus feedback Adrian Lock EUCLIPSE WP3 meeting, Toulouse, April 2012.

© Crown copyright Met Office

Balanced state

• So, despite enhanced LH fluxes at all levels, SH flux is reduced because of reduced LW cooling implying reduced buoyancy flux

Total

TurbRad

Page 13: © Crown copyright Met Office Some thoughts on s12 stratocumulus feedback Adrian Lock EUCLIPSE WP3 meeting, Toulouse, April 2012.

© Crown copyright Met Office

What if?

• …the initial s12 cloud layer were deeper?

• Same initial response (larger we → higher cloud-top and thinner cloud layer)?

• Noting that cloud depth has a strong control on the integrated buoyancy flux, thinner cloud layer still implies we reduces but not now to less than control?

• So equilibrium state would still be a thinner cloud layer (ie positive feedback) but with a higher cloud-top?

• Chris Jones has tested this in a MLM…

Page 14: © Crown copyright Met Office Some thoughts on s12 stratocumulus feedback Adrian Lock EUCLIPSE WP3 meeting, Toulouse, April 2012.

© Crown copyright Met Office

Initial conditions don’t matter!

Page 15: © Crown copyright Met Office Some thoughts on s12 stratocumulus feedback Adrian Lock EUCLIPSE WP3 meeting, Toulouse, April 2012.

© Crown copyright Met Office

What if?

• What if the circulation changes?

• Eg, the shape of the w pdf changes?

• HadGEM2 shows no change in the mean but less ascent and more weak subsidence

• If w>0 associated with small cloud fraction then this might suggest a negative cloud feedback (but this doesn’t happen in HadGEM2)

• Something to try in time-varying CGILS…

• Eg, the wind speed changes? (See Webb and Lock, soon!)

s12