1. Case 5: Tracer Transport in Deep Convection STERAO-1996 From Dye et al. (2000)

2. Motivation Convective processing of chemical species is important to –Moving pollutants to upper troposphere –Cleansing the atmosphere (rain out) Large-scale models produce inconsistent results for convective transport of scalars

3. Results From the NCAR CCSM Using Different Convection Parameterizations Emanuel, Stochastic mixing model Standard, CCSM bulk formulation Kain-Fritsch, Plume model Mixing ratio of surface tracer averaged over the TOGA-COARE region as a function of day (December 18 – January 8) and pressure From Phil Rasch, EGS talk, 2003

4. Motivation Convective processing of chemical species is important to –Moving pollutants to upper troposphere –Cleansing the atmosphere (rain out) Large-scale models produce inconsistent results for convective transport of scalars Convective-scale models produce reasonably represent convective transport

5. Results From the COMMAS Convective Cloud Model Coupled With Chemistry From Skamarock et al. (2000)

6. To improve sub-grid convective transport and wet deposition in large-scale models, multiple convective-scale models can be used to obtain general characteristics of these processes. This intercomparison provides a means to calibrate a variety of convective-scale models coupled with chemistry.

7. Chemistry Transport by Deep Convection Simulate the 10 July 1996 STERAO storm. Colorado Nebraska Wyoming

8. Chemistry Transport by Deep Convection Purpose: Assess the capability of each model to transport chemical species from the boundary layer to the upper troposphere including the entrainment of free tropospheric air. Parameterizations of lightning-produced NOx will also be compared. Primary Species: Ozone (O 3 ) – tracer Carbon monoxide (CO) – tracer Nitrogen oxides (NOx = NO + NO 2 ) – enhanced by lightning Secondary species: Nitric acid (HNO 3 ), hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ), and formaldehyde (CH 2 O) – soluble that depend on the microphysics

9. Initialization Convection initiated with 3 warm bubbles Sounding data came from Skamarock et al. (2000)

10. Initialization of Chemical Species Initial profile MOZART profile Points from aircraft observations

11. Initialization of Chemical Species

12. Requested Output Peak updraft velocities as a function of time and location Volume mixing ratios (ppbv) across the anvil for CO, O 3, and NOx: –1 hour into the simulation at ~10 km downwind of the southeasternmost cell (with a SW-NE orientation) –~½ hour later at ~50 km downwind of the southeasternmost cell (with a N-S orientation) Vertical cross section of particle concentration, CO, O 3, NO, and NOx at ~6000 s and 50-60 km downwind of convective core Fluxes of air mass, CO and NOx integrated over the anvil

13. Participants NCAR using WRF with aqueous chemistry (Barth, Kim) Chien Wang (MIT) Ann Fridlind (NASA/Ames) Jean-Pierre Pinty and Celine Mari (Toulouse) Maud Leriche (U. Blaise-Pascal)

14. ModelDynamics, Thermodynamics Radiation Cloud Microphysics and Aerosols ChemistryConfiguration Barth, Kim WRFchem 3D, flux-form, Runge-Kutta, no radiation 2 liquid, 3 ice, predict M (Lin et al) no aerosols Tracers + Gas and aqueous (pH = 4.5) 120 x 120 x 20 1 x 1 km horiz 50 vert levels 10 s time step C. Wang3D pseudo-elastic ice-liquid T interactive rad. 2 liquid, 2 ice, predict N & M Prognostic CCN and IN on120x120x50 gridpts 1 x 1 x 0.4 km resolution A. Fridlind3D, 2 strm interactive radiation (44 wvl) Sec. aerosols, cloud liquid, and ice (16 bins each) -- no hail None128 x 128 x 24 1 x 1 x 0.375 km resolution Pinty, Mari Toulouse MesoNH 3D, anelastic, MPDATA advec 2-moment, 6 water variables aerosols? Scav sol sp (none in ice) Electric schm 120 x 120 x 20 Resol. follows Skamarock et al, ‘00 M. LericheRAMS

15. Results

16. Peak Updraft and Location

17. Transects

19. Cross sections Particles

20. Cross sections CO

21. Cross sections O 3

22. Cross sections NO x

23. Time (s) WRFchem C.Wang A.Fridlind Toulouse M.Leriche 3600 160.6 132.9 91.5 4200 160.8 237.9 - 4800 168.8 355.8 414.8 5400 135.2 410.2 - 6000 213.4 480.0 501.4 6600 187.8 526.1 - 7200 269.6 543.1 548.3 Anvil Area (10 6 m 2 )

24. Time (s) WRFchem C.Wang A.Fridlind Toulouse M.Leriche 3600 8.46 7.01 7.32 5.31 4200 8.25 6.61 - 5.39 4800 7.78 6.22 6.81 5.46 5400 7.87 6.08 - 5.45 6000 7.64 6.13 6.59 5.43 6600 7.48 6.17 - 5.41 7200 7.69 5.92 6.46 5.39 Mass Flux (kg m -2 s -1 )

25. Time (s) WRFchem C.Wang A.Fridlind Toulouse M.Leriche 3600 2.36 1.83 9.70 1.53 4200 2.39 1.75 - 1.56 4800 2.30 1.64 8.40 1.59 5400 2.34 1.61 - 1.60 6000 2.35 1.61 7.81 1.61 6600 2.29 1.63 - 1.62 7200 2.37 1.59 7.49 1.62 CO (10 -5 mol m -2 s -1 )

26. Time (s) WRFchem C.Wang A.Fridlind Toulouse M.Leriche 3600 2.44 2.22 4200 2.25 1.99 4800 1.92 1.84 5400 2.08 1.87 6000 2.09 1.81 6600 2.03 1.76 7200 2.34 1.67 NOx (10 -8 mol m -2 s -1 )

27. Plans Discuss these results in detail Address comments already brought up Discuss future simulations