Abstract
Turbulent mixing in the daytime convective boundary layer (CBL) is carried out by organized nonlocal updrafts and smaller local eddies. In the upper mixed layer of the CBL, heat fluxes associated with nonlocal updrafts are directed up the local potential temperature gradient. To reproduce such countergradient behavior in parameterizations, a class of planetary boundary layer schemes adopts a countergradient correction term in addition to the classic downgradient eddy-diffusion term. Such schemes are popular because of their simple formulation and effective performance. This study reexamines those schemes to investigate the physical representations of the gradient and countergradient (GCG) terms, and to rebut the often-implied association of the GCG terms with heat fluxes due to local and nonlocal (LNL) eddies. To do so, large-eddy simulations (LESs) of six idealized CBL cases are performed. The GCG fluxes are computed a priori with horizontally averaged LES data, while the LNL fluxes are diagnosed through conditional sampling and Fourier decomposition of the LES flow field. It is found that in the upper mixed layer, the gradient term predicts downward fluxes in the presence of positive mean potential temperature gradient but is compensated by the upward countergradient correction flux, which is larger than the total heat flux. However, neither downward local fluxes nor larger-than-total nonlocal fluxes are diagnosed from LES. The difference reflects reduced turbulence efficiency for GCG fluxes and, in terms of physics, conceptual deficiencies in the GCG representation of CBL heat fluxes.
© 2018 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).
