A Joint Probability Density-Based Decomposition of Turbulence in the Atmospheric Boundary Layer

被引:22
作者
Chinita, Maria J. [1 ,2 ]
Matheou, Georgios [3 ]
Teixeira, Joao [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Lisbon, Inst Dom Luiz, Fac Ciencias, Lisbon, Portugal
[2] CALTECH, Jet Prop Lab, 4800 Oak Grove Dr, Pasadena, CA 91125 USA
[3] Univ Connecticut, Dept Mech Engn, Storrs, CT USA
关键词
LARGE-EDDY SIMULATION; SHALLOW CUMULUS CONVECTION; MODEL; DRY; PARAMETERIZATION; REPRESENTATION; THERMALS; CLOUDS; MASS;
D O I
10.1175/MWR-D-17-0166.1
中图分类号
P4 [大气科学(气象学)];
学科分类号
0706 ; 070601 ;
摘要
In convective flows, vertical turbulent fluxes, covariances between vertical velocity and scalar thermodynamic variables, include contributions from local mixing and large-scale coherent motions, such as updrafts and downdrafts. The relative contribution of these motions to the covariance is important in turbulence parameterizations. However, the flux partition is challenging, especially in regions without convective cloud. A method to decompose the vertical flux based on the corresponding joint probability density function (JPD) is introduced. The JPD-based method partitions the full JPD into a joint Gaussian part and the complement, which represent the local mixing and the large-scale coherent motions, respectively. The coherent part can be further divided into updraft and downdraft parts based on the sign of vertical velocity. The flow decomposition is independent of water condensate (cloud) and can be applied in cloud-free convection, the subcloud layer, and stratiform cloud regions. The method is applied to large-eddy simulation model data of three boundary layers. The results are compared with traditional cloud and cloud-core decompositions and a decaying scalar conditional sampling method. The JPD-based method includes a single free parameter and sensitivity tests show weak dependence on the parameter values. The results of the JPD-based method are somewhat similar to the cloud-core and conditional sampling methods. However, differences in the relative magnitude of the flux decomposition terms suggest that an objective definition of the flow regions is subtle and diagnosed flow properties like updraft characteristics depend on the sampling method. Moreover, the flux decomposition depends on the thermodynamic variable and convection characteristics.
引用
收藏
页码:503 / 523
页数:21
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]   Performance of an Eddy Diffusivity-Mass Flux Scheme for Shallow Cumulus Boundary Layers [J].
Angevine, Wayne M. ;
Jiang, Hongli ;
Mauritsen, Thorsten .
MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW, 2010, 138 (07) :2895-2912
[2]  
Berg LK, 2004, J ATMOS SCI, V61, P813, DOI 10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061<0813:POJFDO>2.0.CO
[3]  
2
[4]   A simplified PDF parameterization of subgrid-scale clouds and turbulence for cloud-resolving models [J].
Bogenschutz, Peter A. ;
Krueger, Steven K. .
JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN MODELING EARTH SYSTEMS, 2013, 5 (02) :195-211
[5]   A 2-STREAM MODEL OF THE VERTICAL TRANSPORT OF TRACE SPECIES IN THE CONVECTIVE BOUNDARY-LAYER [J].
CHATFIELD, RB ;
BROST, RA .
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 1987, 92 (D11) :13263-13276
[6]   Negative water vapour skewness and dry tongues in the convective boundary layer: observations and large-eddy simulation budget analysis [J].
Couvreux, F. ;
Guichard, F. ;
Masson, V. ;
Redelsperger, J.-L. .
BOUNDARY-LAYER METEOROLOGY, 2007, 123 (02) :269-294
[7]   Resolved Versus Parametrized Boundary-Layer Plumes. Part I: A Parametrization-Oriented Conditional Sampling in Large-Eddy Simulations [J].
Couvreux, F. ;
Hourdin, F. ;
Rio, C. .
BOUNDARY-LAYER METEOROLOGY, 2010, 134 (03) :441-458
[8]  
Golaz JC, 2002, J ATMOS SCI, V59, P3540, DOI 10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059<3540:APBMFB>2.0.CO
[9]  
2
[10]  
HOLLAND JZ, 1973, MON WEATHER REV, V101, P44, DOI 10.1175/1520-0493(1973)101<0044:MOTAME>2.3.CO