4.7 Article

Sensitivity of the simulated monsoons of 1987 and 1988 to convective parameterization schemes in MM5

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLIMATE
Volume 18, Issue 14, Pages 2724-2743

Publisher

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/JCLI3390.1

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study the fifth-generation Pennsylvania State University-National Center for Atmospheric Research (PSU-NCAR) Mesoscale Model (MM5) version 3.5.2 was used to simulate the Indian summer monsoon during the two contrasting years of 1987 and 1988, a dry year and a wet year, respectively. Three different convection parameterization schemes of Betts-Miller-Janjic, Kain-Fritsch, and Grell were used to study the sensitivity of monsoon to cumulus effects. The model was integrated for a period of 6 months, starting from three different initial conditions of 0000 UTC on 1, 2, and 3 May of each year using the NCEP-NCAR reanalysis data as input. The 6-hourly reanalysis data were used to provide the lateral boundary conditions, and the observed weekly Reynolds sea surface temperature, linearly interpolated to 6 h, was used as the lower boundary forcing. The results show that all three cumulus schemes were able to simulate the interannual and intraseasonal variabilities in the monsoon with reasonable accuracy. However, the spatial distribution of the rainfall and its quantity were different in all the schemes. The Grell scheme underestimated the rainfall in both the years. The Kain-Fritsch scheme simulated the observed rainfall well during July and August, the peak monsoon months, of the year 1988 but overestimated the rainfall in June and September of 1988 and throughout the monsoon season of 1987. The Betts-Miller-Janjic scheme simulated less rainfall in the drought year of 1987 and overestimated the rainfall in June and July of 1988. The circulation patterns simulated by the Betts-Miller-Janjic and Kain-Fritsch schemes are comparable to the observed patterns.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available