Abstract
AbstractThe sensitivity of the UK Universities Global Atmospheric Modelling Programme (UGAMP) General Circulation Model (UGCM) to two very different approaches to convective parametrization is described. Comparison is made between a Kuo scheme, which is constrained by large‐scale moisture convergence, and a convective‐adjustment scheme, which relaxes to observed thermodynamic states. Results from 360‐day integrations with perpetual January conditions are used to describe the model's tropical time‐mean climate and its variability. Both convection schemes give reasonable simulations of the time‐mean climate, but the representation of the main modes of tropical variability is markedly different. The Kuo scheme has much weaker variance, confined to synoptic frequencies near 4 days, and a poor simulation of intraseasonal variability. In contrast, the convective‐adjustment scheme has much more transient activity at ail time‐scales. The various aspects of the two schemes which might explain this difference are discussed. The particular closure on moisture convergence used in this version of the Kuo scheme is identified as being inappropriate.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
