[CCLM-Converction Permitting Scale] Korea Domain (3km) simulation configuration – in #9: CCLM

in #9: CCLM

<p> Donghyun and Andreas, I am really happy to see that people are using the results of Brisson et al. (2015) for preparing their model setups. If you have any further question on this research, do not hesitate to contact me. </p> <p> For your information in the <span class="caps"> CRCS </span> working group, we have two projects going on, which aim at providing appropriate configurations for the <span class="caps"> COSMO </span> - <span class="caps"> CLM </span> at convection permitting scales. Hopefully, we will be able to provide the community with this information in the coming year. For one of this project, we set up a list of parameters which may be relevant to test. </p> <p> Concerning the graupel parameterization. I personally believe that it is a mistake to turn the graupel parameterization off in convectively active areas with moderate or high temperature. The parameterization of graupel should not be seen as a switch for adjusting the climatology of precipitation. As explained in Brisson et al. (2015) and many other studies, graupel plays a major role in the production of intense precipitation through riming. It also has an impact on the vertical distribution of latent heat release and other processes which are mainly occurring in deep convection. In my opinion, the graupel parameterization is critical for representing realistically deep convection for the present-day and other climates. <br/> Andreas, correct me if I am wrong, but at the latitude of Svalbard, the occurrence of convection is probably low (the ratio of convective precipitation/stratiform precipitation is &lt;&lt;1), and the atmosphere is cold enough which limits the relevance of riming processes (which require both the presence of solid and liquid water). <br/> Of course, it does not hurt to test the sensitivity of the graupel parameterization. However, I would not turn it off to compensate an overestimation of precipitation in the parent simulation. </p> <p> In the <span class="caps"> CRCS </span> working group, there exist a namelist market, where <span class="caps"> CRCS </span> group members are invited to share their namelists. http://redc.clm-community.eu/projects/cclm/wiki/CRCS_namelist_market . I guess this is a useful page for you. </p> <p> Kind regards, <br/> Erwan </p>

  @redc_migration in #d191869

<p> Donghyun and Andreas, I am really happy to see that people are using the results of Brisson et al. (2015) for preparing their model setups. If you have any further question on this research, do not hesitate to contact me. </p> <p> For your information in the <span class="caps"> CRCS </span> working group, we have two projects going on, which aim at providing appropriate configurations for the <span class="caps"> COSMO </span> - <span class="caps"> CLM </span> at convection permitting scales. Hopefully, we will be able to provide the community with this information in the coming year. For one of this project, we set up a list of parameters which may be relevant to test. </p> <p> Concerning the graupel parameterization. I personally believe that it is a mistake to turn the graupel parameterization off in convectively active areas with moderate or high temperature. The parameterization of graupel should not be seen as a switch for adjusting the climatology of precipitation. As explained in Brisson et al. (2015) and many other studies, graupel plays a major role in the production of intense precipitation through riming. It also has an impact on the vertical distribution of latent heat release and other processes which are mainly occurring in deep convection. In my opinion, the graupel parameterization is critical for representing realistically deep convection for the present-day and other climates. <br/> Andreas, correct me if I am wrong, but at the latitude of Svalbard, the occurrence of convection is probably low (the ratio of convective precipitation/stratiform precipitation is &lt;&lt;1), and the atmosphere is cold enough which limits the relevance of riming processes (which require both the presence of solid and liquid water). <br/> Of course, it does not hurt to test the sensitivity of the graupel parameterization. However, I would not turn it off to compensate an overestimation of precipitation in the parent simulation. </p> <p> In the <span class="caps"> CRCS </span> working group, there exist a namelist market, where <span class="caps"> CRCS </span> group members are invited to share their namelists. http://redc.clm-community.eu/projects/cclm/wiki/CRCS_namelist_market . I guess this is a useful page for you. </p> <p> Kind regards, <br/> Erwan </p>

Donghyun and Andreas, I am really happy to see that people are using the results of Brisson et al. (2015) for preparing their model setups. If you have any further question on this research, do not hesitate to contact me.

For your information in the CRCS working group, we have two projects going on, which aim at providing appropriate configurations for the COSMO - CLM at convection permitting scales. Hopefully, we will be able to provide the community with this information in the coming year. For one of this project, we set up a list of parameters which may be relevant to test.

Concerning the graupel parameterization. I personally believe that it is a mistake to turn the graupel parameterization off in convectively active areas with moderate or high temperature. The parameterization of graupel should not be seen as a switch for adjusting the climatology of precipitation. As explained in Brisson et al. (2015) and many other studies, graupel plays a major role in the production of intense precipitation through riming. It also has an impact on the vertical distribution of latent heat release and other processes which are mainly occurring in deep convection. In my opinion, the graupel parameterization is critical for representing realistically deep convection for the present-day and other climates.
Andreas, correct me if I am wrong, but at the latitude of Svalbard, the occurrence of convection is probably low (the ratio of convective precipitation/stratiform precipitation is <<1), and the atmosphere is cold enough which limits the relevance of riming processes (which require both the presence of solid and liquid water).
Of course, it does not hurt to test the sensitivity of the graupel parameterization. However, I would not turn it off to compensate an overestimation of precipitation in the parent simulation.

In the CRCS working group, there exist a namelist market, where CRCS group members are invited to share their namelists. http://redc.clm-community.eu/projects/cclm/wiki/CRCS_namelist_market . I guess this is a useful page for you.

Kind regards,
Erwan