4.6 Article

Transport from convective overshooting of the extratropical tropopause and the role of large-scale lower stratosphere stability

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES
卷 119, 期 5, 页码 2220-2240

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2013JD020931

关键词

convection; tropopause; stratosphere-troposphere exchange

资金

  1. Advanced Study Program (ASP) at NCAR
  2. National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Simulations of observed convective systems with the Advanced Research Weather Research and Forecasting (ARW-WRF) model are used to test the influence of the large-scale lower stratosphere stability environment on the vertical extent of convective overshooting and transport above the extratropical tropopause. Three unique environments are identified (double tropopause, stratospheric intrusion, and single tropopause), and representative cases with comparable magnitudes of convective available potential energy are selected for simulation. Convective injection into the extratropical lower stratosphere is found to be deepest for the double-tropopause case (up to 4 km above the lapse-rate tropopause) and at comparable altitudes for the remaining cases (up to 2 km above the lapse-rate tropopause). All simulations show evidence of gravity wave breaking near the overshooting convective top, consistent with the identification of its role as a transport mechanism in previous studies. Simulations for the double-tropopause case, however, also show evidence of direct mixing of the overshooting top into the lower stratosphere, which is responsible for the highest levels of injection in that case. In addition, the choice of bulk microphysical parameterization for ARW-WRF simulations is found to have little impact on the transport characteristics for each case. Key Points Convective overshooting and transport are sensitive to stratospheric stability ARW-WRF model is capable of simulating representative convective depths Choice of model microphysics scheme has negligible impact

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据