While the numerical models are being run with increasing resolutions, the parameterization of cumulus convection used in the general circulation models, irrespective of closure assumption and trigger mechanism, continue to use the mass flux framework. To address one of the most important components of convective parameterization, vertical profile of mass flux is examined. We have compared the convective mass flux of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) models during Boreal summer over the Eastern Pacific, Western Pacific and Indian Ocean with that of ERA – Year of Tropical Convection (YOTC) reanalysis dataset. The analyses suggest that most of the models overestimate the mass flux by an order over all the oceanic basins and interestingly the vertical structure also appears similar for all the CMIP5 models irrespective of ocean basins. In view of this, we state that the improper mass flux distribution in the cumulus parameterization schemes of global models need to be improved to reduce some of the uncertainties arising from the cumulus schemes of climate models which in turn impact the precipitation bias of the models.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Adler R F, Huffman G J, Chang A, Ferraro R, Xie P, Janowiak J, Rudolf B, Schneider U, Curtis S, Bolvin D, Gruber A, Susskind J, Arkin P and Nelkin E 2003 The version 2 Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) monthly precipitation analysis (1979–present); J. Hydrometeorol.4 1147–1167.
Arakawa A and Schubert W H 1974 Interaction of a cumulus cloud ensemble with the large-scale environment. Part I; J. Atmos. Sci. 31(3) 674–701, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1974)0312.0.CO;2.
Bechtold P, Bazile E, Guichard F and Mascart P 2001 A mass-flux convection scheme for regional and global models; Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 127 869–886, https://doi.org/10.1256/smsqj.57308.
Bougeault P 1985 A simple parameterization of the large scale effect of cumulus convection; Mon. Weather Rev.113 2108–2121.
Dandi A R, Sabeerali C T, Chattopadhyay R, Rao D N, George G, Dhakate A, Salunke K, Srivastava A and Rao A S 2016 Indian summer monsoon rainfall simulation and prediction skill in the CFSv2 coupled model: Impact of atmospheric horizontal resolution; J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.121(5) 2205–2221.
Donner L J 1993 A cumulus parameterization including mass fluxes, vertical momentum dynamics, and mesoscale effects; J. Atmos. Sci.50 889–906.
Emanuel K A 1991 A scheme for representing cumulus convection in large-scale models; J. Atmos. Sci.48 2313–2329.
Ganai M, Krishna R P M, Mukhopadhyay P and Mahakur M 2016 The impact of revised simplified Arakawa–Schubert scheme on the simulation of mean and diurnal variability associated with active and break phases of Indian summer monsoon using CFSv2; J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.121(16) 9301–9323.
Gregory D and Rowntree P R 1990 A mass flux convection scheme with representation of cloud ensemble characteristics and stability-dependent closure; Mon. Weather Rev.118 1483–1506.
Han J and Pan H-L 2011 Revision of convection and vertical diffusion schemes in the NCEP Global Forecast System; Wea. Forecasting26 520–533, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-10-05038.1.
Huffman G J, Bolvin D T and Nelkin E J et al. 2007 The TRMM multisatellite precipitation analysis (TMPA): Quasi-global, multiyear, combined-sensor precipitation estimates at fine scales; J. Hydrometeorol. 8 38–55, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM560.1.
Kain J S and Fritsch J M 1990 A one-dimensional entraining/detraining Plume model and its application in convective parameterization; J. Atmos. Sci.47 2784–2802.
Kumar V V, Jakob C and Protat A et al. 2015 Mass-flux characteristics of tropical cumulus clouds from wind profiler observations at Darwin, Australia; J. Atmos. Sci.72 1837–1855, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0259.1.
Kim H-M, Webster P J and Curry J A 2012 Seasonal prediction skill of ECMWF system 4 and NCEP CFSv2 retrospective forecast for the Northern Hemisphere Winter; Clim. Dyn.39 2957–2973, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1364-6.
Masunaga H and Luo Z J 2016 Convective and large-scale mass flux profiles over tropical oceans determined from synergistic analysis of a suite of satellite observations; J. Geophys. Res. 121 7958–7974, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD024753.
Rienecker M M et al. 2011 MERRA: NASA’s modern-era retrospective analysis for research and applications; J. Clim. 24 3624–3648, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00015.1.
Sperber K R, Annamalai H and Kang I S et al. 2013 The Asian summer monsoon: An intercomparison of CMIP5 vs. CMIP3 simulations of the late 20th century; Clim. Dyn.41.
Taylor K E, Stouffer R J and Meehl G A 2012 An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design; Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.93 485–498, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1.
Yanai M, Esbensen S and Chu J 1973 Determination of the bulk properties of tropical cloud clusters from large heat and moisture budgets; J. Atmos. Sci.30 611–627.
Authors thank the Director, IITM, Pune for motivation and encouragement. IITM, Pune is fully funded by Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India, New Delhi. Authors gratefully acknowledge the comments of anonymous reviewers and editor which has helped to improve the manuscript. We would like to thank GSFC/DAAC, NASA for providing TRMM for (http://mirador.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgibin/mirador/presentNavigation.pl?tree=project&project=TRMM&dataGroup=Gridded), ESRL for GPCP (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.gpcp.html) datasets, and MERRA for (http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/daacbin/FTPSubset2.pl) datasets. We would also like to thank ESGF-CoG for providing CMIP5 dataset (https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/search/esgf-llnl/). We acknowledge ECMWF for providing ERA-YOTC datasets (https://apps.ecmwf.int/datasets/data/yotc-od/levtype=sfc/type=an/). First author (PM) gratefully acknowledges the discussion and guidance provided by Dr Zhengzhao Johnny Luo, Dept. of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, City College, City University of New York and Dr H Masunaga, Institute for Space-Earth Environmental Research, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan. This paper is part of KR’s PhD thesis.
Supplementary materials pertaining to this article are available on the Journal of Earth Science Website (http://www.ias.ac.in/Journals/Journal_of_Earth_System_Science).
Communicated by Kavirajan Rajendran
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Mukhopadhyay, P., Roy, K. Evaluation of the convective mass flux profiles associated with cumulus parameterization schemes of CMIP5 models. J Earth Syst Sci 129, 138 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-020-01400-5
- Convective mass flux
- improper vertical distribution
- CMIP5 models