Replies: 1 comment
-
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Hi @slayoo and @claresinger, I'm starting a discussion here to share a few interesting conversations I had regarding super-droplet microphysics at the Micro2Macro workshop this week:
Kamal Kant Chandrakar (NCAR) has included a turbulent collision kernel in the CM1 LES super-droplet code, reporting a significant impact on rain initiation in cumulus congestus clouds. Hugh Morrison (NCAR) specifically pointed out that turbulence minimizes the impact of giant CCNs and yields a better agreement with observations than a gravitational kernel.
Corey Bois (@CappedColumn), one of Steve Krueger's graduate students, is also looking into incorporating the 1D LEM into PySDM, which models the effect of sub-grid turbulence through stochastic supersaturation fluctuations as I flagged in Including linear eddy model (LEM) in the 1D kinematic driver example #1285 A recent review benchmarked different turbulence models for cloud-edge mixing using DNS as a reference.
There was also research from Robert Wood's (UW) group about giant CCN impacts on precipitation in marine boundary layer clouds where they have an exponentially decaying size distribution truncated at r$\sim$ 10 $\mu {\rm m}$ . It reminded me that even in my own experiments with PySDM, collision-coalescence fails for r $\gtrsim$ 10 $\mu {\rm m}$ droplets, since the $\sim 6 {\rm mm}$ . An easy fix is to use the
GunnKinzer
parameterization for terminal velocity does not extrapolate beyond drizzle drop size of rPowerSeries
parameterization instead, but that yields artificially high surface precipitation values.Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions