Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

Effect of Time Step Size in MM5 Simulations of a Mesoscale Convective System

Mei Xu Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado, and National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Mei Xu in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Jian-Wen Bao Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, and NOAA/Environmental Technology Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Jian-Wen Bao in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Thomas T. Warner Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado, and National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Thomas T. Warner in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
David J. Stensrud NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, Oklahoma

Search for other papers by David J. Stensrud in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Mar 2001
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2001)129<0502:EOTSSI>2.0.CO;2
Page(s):
502–516
Restricted access

Abstract

Results from simulations of a mesoscale convective system (MCS) that occurred in a weakly forced large-scale environment show significant sensitivity to the time step size chosen for model integration. As the time step is decreased, the movement and longevity of the simulated MCS depart further from the observations. It is found that the time step–dependent formulation of the numerical diffusivity is responsible for a major part of this sensitivity in the simulated MCS. The changes contributed by truncation errors may or may not be negligible, depending on the physics schemes used in the simulations. This suggests that the choice of a specific linearly stable model time step, in combination with the definition of the numerical diffusivity, may at times be as important as the choice of the basic model configuration.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Mei Xu, Research Applications Program, National Center for Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307.

Abstract

Results from simulations of a mesoscale convective system (MCS) that occurred in a weakly forced large-scale environment show significant sensitivity to the time step size chosen for model integration. As the time step is decreased, the movement and longevity of the simulated MCS depart further from the observations. It is found that the time step–dependent formulation of the numerical diffusivity is responsible for a major part of this sensitivity in the simulated MCS. The changes contributed by truncation errors may or may not be negligible, depending on the physics schemes used in the simulations. This suggests that the choice of a specific linearly stable model time step, in combination with the definition of the numerical diffusivity, may at times be as important as the choice of the basic model configuration.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Mei Xu, Research Applications Program, National Center for Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307.

Save
Cover Monthly Weather Review
Monthly Weather Review

  • Anthes, R. A., and T. T. Warner, 1978: Development of hydrodynamic models suitable for air pollution and other mesometeorological studies. Mon. Wea. Rev.,106, 1045–1078.

  • Augustine, J. A., and K. W. Howard, 1988: Mesoscale convective complexes over the United States during 1985. Mon. Wea. Rev.,116, 685–701.

  • Benjamin, S. G., and N. L. Seaman, 1985: A simple scheme for objective analysis in curved flow. Mon. Wea. Rev.,113, 1184–1198.

  • Betts, A. K., and M. J. Miller, 1993: The Betts–Miller scheme. The Representation of Cumulus Convection in Numerical Models, Meteor. Monogr., No. 46, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 107–121.

  • Blackadar, A. K., 1979: High resolution models of the planetary boundary layer. Advances in Environmental Science and Engineering, J. Pfafflin and E. Ziegler, Eds., Vol. 1, No. 1, Gordon and Breach, 50–85.

  • Dudhia, J., 1989: Numerical study of convection observed during the winter monsoon experiment using a mesoscale two-dimensional model. J. Atmos. Sci.,46, 3077–3107.

  • ——, 1993: A nonhydrostatic version of the Penn State/NCAR mesoscale model: Validation tests and the simulation of an Atlantic cyclone and cold front. Mon. Wea. Rev.,121, 1493–1513.

  • Emanuel, K. A., and D. J. Raymond, 1992: Report from a workshop on cumulus parameterization Key Biscayne, Florida, 3–5 May 1991. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,73, 318–325.

  • Grell, G., 1993: Prognostic evaluation of assumptions used by cumulus parameterizations. Mon. Wea. Rev.,121, 764–787.

  • ——, J. Dudhia, and D. R. Stauffer, 1994: A description of the fifth-generation Penn State/NCAR mesoscale model (MM5). NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-398 + STR, 122 pp.

  • Haltiner, G. J., and R. T. Williams, 1980: Numerical Prediction and Dynamic Meteorology. 2d ed. Wiley, 477 pp.

  • Heideman, K. F., and J. M. Fritsch, 1988: Forcing mechanisms and other characteristics of significant summertime precipitation. Wea. Forecasting,3, 115–130.

  • Houze, R. A., Jr., 1993: Cloud Dynamics. Academic Press, 573 pp.

  • Janjic, Z. I., 1994: The step-mountain eta coordinate model: Further developments of the convection, viscous sublayer, and turbulence closure schemes. Mon. Wea. Rev.,122, 927–945.

  • Janssen, P. A., and J. D. Doyle, 1997: On spurious chaotic behavior in the discretized ECMWF physics scheme. ECMWF Tech. Memo. 234, 24 pp.

  • Kuo, Y.-H., R. J. Reed, and Y.-B. Liu, 1996: The ERICA IOP5 storm. Part III: Mesoscale cyclogenesis and precipitation parameterization. Mon. Wea. Rev.,124, 1409–1434.

  • Maddox, R. A., 1980: Mesoscale convective complexes. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,61, 1374–1387.

  • Mellor, G. L., and T. Yamada, 1982: Development of a turbulent closure model for geophysical fluid problems. Rev. Geophys.,20, 851–875.

  • Rutledge, S. A., and P. V. Hobbs, 1983: The mesoscale and microscale structure and organization of clouds and precipitation in midlatitude cyclones. VIII: A model for the “seeder-feeder” process in warm-frontal rainbands. J. Atmos. Sci.,40, 2949–2972.

  • Stensrud, D. J., and J. M. Fritsch, 1994a: Mesoscale convective systems in weakly forced large-scale environments. Part II: Generation of a mesoscale initial condition. Mon. Wea. Rev.,122, 2068–2083.

  • ——, and ——, 1994b: Mesoscale convective systems in weakly forced large-scale environments. Part III: Numerical simulations and implications for operational forecasting. Mon. Wea. Rev.,122, 2084–2104.

  • ——, J.-W. Bao, and T. T. Warner, 2000: Using initial condition and model physics perturbations in short-range ensemble simulations of mesoscale convective systems. Mon. Wea. Rev.,128, 2077–2107.

  • Walcek, C. J., 1994: Cloud cover and its relationship to relative humidity during a springtime midlatitude cyclone. Mon. Wea. Rev.,122, 1021–1035.

  • Wang, W., and N. L. Seaman, 1997: A comparison study of convective parameterization schemes in a mesoscale model. Mon. Wea. Rev.,125, 252–278.

  • Xue, M., K. K. Droegemeier, V. Wong, A. Shapiro, and K. Brewster, 1995: ARPS version 4.0 user’s guide. Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms, 380 pp [Available from CAPS, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019].

  • Zhang, D.-L., and R. A. Anthes, 1982: A high-resolution model of the planetary boundary layer—Sensitivity tests and comparisons with SESAME-79 data. J. Appl. Meteor.,21, 1594–1609.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 724 594 37
PDF Downloads 94 25 2