Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing



Similar documents
Limitations of Equilibrium Or: What if τ LS τ adj?

Theory of moist convection in statistical equilibrium

Description of zero-buoyancy entraining plume model

Evalua&ng Downdra/ Parameteriza&ons with High Resolu&on CRM Data

How To Model An Ac Cloud

Using Cloud-Resolving Model Simulations of Deep Convection to Inform Cloud Parameterizations in Large-Scale Models

Trimodal cloudiness and tropical stable layers in simulations of radiative convective equilibrium

GCMs with Implicit and Explicit cloudrain processes for simulation of extreme precipitation frequency

A Review on the Uses of Cloud-(System-)Resolving Models

MICROPHYSICS COMPLEXITY EFFECTS ON STORM EVOLUTION AND ELECTRIFICATION

Unified Cloud and Mixing Parameterizations of the Marine Boundary Layer: EDMF and PDF-based cloud approaches

Convective Vertical Velocities in GFDL AM3, Cloud Resolving Models, and Radar Retrievals

Comparison of the Vertical Velocity used to Calculate the Cloud Droplet Number Concentration in a Cloud-Resolving and a Global Climate Model

Frank and Charles Cohen Department of Meteorology The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA, U.S.A.

ME6130 An introduction to CFD 1-1

An economical scale-aware parameterization for representing subgrid-scale clouds and turbulence in cloud-resolving models and global models

Parameterization of Cumulus Convective Cloud Systems in Mesoscale Forecast Models

Usama Anber 1, Shuguang Wang 2, and Adam Sobel 1,2,3

Long-term Observations of the Convective Boundary Layer (CBL) and Shallow cumulus Clouds using Cloud Radar at the SGP ARM Climate Research Facility

Lecture 3. Turbulent fluxes and TKE budgets (Garratt, Ch 2)

Developing Continuous SCM/CRM Forcing Using NWP Products Constrained by ARM Observations

Large Eddy Simulation (LES) & Cloud Resolving Model (CRM) Françoise Guichard and Fleur Couvreux

Impact of microphysics on cloud-system resolving model simulations of deep convection and SpCAM

Overview and Cloud Cover Parameterization

Ampacity simulation of a high voltage cable to connecting off shore wind farms

Pricing Alternative forms of Commercial insurance cover. Andrew Harford

Basic Equations, Boundary Conditions and Dimensionless Parameters

Diurnal Cycle of Convection at the ARM SGP Site: Role of Large-Scale Forcing, Surface Fluxes, and Convective Inhibition

LASER MELTED STEEL FREE SURFACE FORMATION

Clouds and Convection

39th International Physics Olympiad - Hanoi - Vietnam Theoretical Problem No. 3

VI. Real Business Cycles Models

Chapter 22: Electric Flux and Gauss s Law

Homework 9. Problems: 12.31, 12.32, 14.4, 14.21

Wind Turbine Power Calculations

Coupling Forced Convection in Air Gaps with Heat and Moisture Transfer inside Constructions

Towards Online Recognition of Handwritten Mathematics

Turbulence-microphysics interactions in boundary layer clouds

Cloud-Resolving Simulations of Convection during DYNAMO

UNIT I: RANDOM VARIABLES PART- A -TWO MARKS

Statistical Forecasting of High-Way Traffic Jam at a Bottleneck

Convective Clouds. Convective clouds 1

RADIATION IN THE TROPICAL ATMOSPHERE and the SAHEL SURFACE HEAT BALANCE. Peter J. Lamb. Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies

The formation of wider and deeper clouds through cold-pool dynamics

Fluid Mechanics: Static s Kinematics Dynamics Fluid

Battery Thermal Management System Design Modeling

Convection in water (an almost-incompressible fluid)

CHI-SQUARE: TESTING FOR GOODNESS OF FIT

Supplement to Call Centers with Delay Information: Models and Insights

Fundamentals of Climate Change (PCC 587): Water Vapor

1D shallow convective case studies and comparisons with LES

Month-Long 2D Cloud-Resolving Model Simulation and Resultant Statistics of Cloud Systems Over the ARM SGP

VISUALIZATION OF DENSITY FUNCTIONS WITH GEOGEBRA

Lecture 9, Thermal Notes, 3.054

Natural Convection. Buoyancy force

Analysing Questionnaires using Minitab (for SPSS queries contact -)

Exploratory Data Analysis

PARTICLE SIMULATION ON MULTIPLE DUST LAYERS OF COULOMB CLOUD IN CATHODE SHEATH EDGE

Total radiative heating/cooling rates.

PTYS/ASTR 206 Section 2 Spring 2007 Homework #2 (Page 1/5) NAME: KEY

Dutch Atmospheric Large-Eddy Simulation Model (DALES v3.2) CGILS-S11 results

Høgskolen i Narvik Sivilingeniørutdanningen

Highly Scalable Dynamic Load Balancing in the Atmospheric Modeling System COSMO-SPECS+FD4

Nonparametric adaptive age replacement with a one-cycle criterion

Tutorial: Structural Models of the Firm

MAS108 Probability I

Stability of Evaporating Polymer Films. For: Dr. Roger Bonnecaze Surface Phenomena (ChE 385M)

AOSC 621 Lesson 15 Radiative Heating/Cooling

Midterm Solutions. mvr = ω f (I wheel + I bullet ) = ω f 2 MR2 + mr 2 ) ω f = v R. 1 + M 2m

How does snow melt? Principles of snow melt. Energy balance. GEO4430 snow hydrology Energy flux onto a unit surface:

I ν = λ 2 I λ. λ<0.35 µm F λ = µm <λ<1.00 µm F λ =0.2 Wm 2 µm 1. λ>1.00 µm F λ =0. F λi 4λ i. i 1

Tutorial on Markov Chain Monte Carlo

Estimating the Degree of Activity of jumps in High Frequency Financial Data. joint with Yacine Aït-Sahalia

This paper is also taken for the relevant Examination for the Associateship. For Second Year Physics Students Wednesday, 4th June 2008: 14:00 to 16:00

Numerical simulations of heat transfer in plane channel

Numerical methods for American options

Mechanics of Materials Summary

Introduction to CFD Analysis

DETAILED STORM SIMULATIONS BY A NUMERICAL CLOUD MODEL WITH ELECTRIFICATION AND LIGHTNING PARAMETERIZATIONS

Transcription:

Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing Jahanshah Davoudi Norman McFarlane, Thomas Birner Physics department, University of Toronto Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p./46

References Brenda G. Cohen and George C. Craig, 24: Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc. 3, 933-944. Brenda G. Cohen and George C. Craig, 26: J. Atmos. Sci. 63, 996-24. Brenda G. Cohen and George C. Craig, 26: J. Atmos. Sci. 63, 25-25. Plant R.S. and George C. Craig, 28: J. Amtos. Sci. 65, 87-5. Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.2/46

Convective parameterization Many clouds and especially the processes within them are subgrid-scale size both horizontally and vertically and thus must be parameterized. This means a mathematical model is constructed that attempts to assess their effects in terms of large scale model resolved quantities. Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.3/46

Parameterization Basics Arakawa & Schubert 974 Key Quasi-equilibrium assumption: τ adj τ ls Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.4/46

Quasi-equilibrium Convective equilibrium requires scale separation Large scale uniform over region containing many clouds Large scale slowly varying so convection has time to respond Convective activity within a small grid cell is highly variable(even in statistically stationary state) Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.5/46

Fluctuations in radiative-convective equilibrium For convection in equilibrium with a given forcing, the mean mass flux should be well defined. At a particular time, this mean value would only be measured in an infinite domain. For a region of finite size: What is the magnitude and distribution of variability? What scale must one average over to reduce it to a desired level? Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.6/46

Main assumptions Assume:.Large-scale constraints- mean mass flux within a region M is given in terms of large scale resolved conditions 2.Scale separation- environment sufficiently uniform in time and space to average over a large number of clouds 3.Weak interactions- clouds feel only mean effects of total cloud field( no organization) Find the distribution function subject to these constraints Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.7/46

Other constraints m is not necessarily a function of large scale forcing Observations suggest that m is independent of large scale forcing Response to the change in forcing is to change the number of clouds. m might be only sensitive to the initial perturbation triggering it and the dynamical entrainment processes. Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.8/46

mass flux of individual clouds are statistically un-correlated : given λ = /( m ) = N M P M (n) = Prob{N [(, M]) = n} = (λm)n e λm Poisson point process implies: is fixed. P(m) = m e m m n! n =,, The total Mass flux for a given N Poisson distributed plumes is a Compound point process: M = NX i= m i Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.9/46

Predicted distribution So the Generating function of M is calculated exactly: G(t) = e tm m,n = e t P N i m i m,n e tm m,n = g N (t) N = e Λ e Λg(t) where g(t) = e tm m Λ = N Therefore the probability distribution of the total mass flux is exactly given by: P(M) = P(M) = «N /2 e N M /2 e M/ m I 2 m «! N /2 m M All the moments of M are analytically tractable and are functions of N and m. (δm) 2 M 2 = 2 N (δm) 3 M 3 = 6 N 2 Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p./46

Estimates In a region with area A and grid size x L where L the mean cloud spacing is: L = (A/ N ) /2 = ( m A/ M ) /2 Assume latent heat release balance radiative cooling S, rate of Latent heating Convective mass flux Typical water vapor mass mixing ratio q l v q M A = S Estimate: S = 25Wm 2, q = gkg and l v = 2.5 6 Jkg gives M /A = 2 kgs m 2 m = wρσ with w ms and σ km 2 gives m 7 kgs hence L 3km δm M = 2 L x Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p./46

CRM distributions of cloud mass flux Mass flux per cloud Total mass flux distribution Craig and Cohen JAS (26) Resolution: Domain: Boundary conditions: Forcings: 2km 2km 5 levels 28 km 28 km 2 km doubly periodic, fixed SST of 3 K fixed tropospheric cooling of 2,4,8,2,6 K day Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.2/46

CRM mass flux variance Without organization Shear (organization) Left panel: normalized standard deviation of are-integrated convective mass flux versus characteristic cloud spacing. Right panel: Various degrees of convection organization: un-sheared(*), weak shear ( ), strong shear(+). Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.3/46

Simulations with a cloud resolving model Resolution: 2km 2km 9 levels Domain: 96 km 96 km 3 km Boundary conditions: doubly periodic, fixed SST of 3 K Forcing: An-elastic equations with fully interactive radiation scheme Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.4/46

A 2D cut through the convective field Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.5/46

In cloud properties up-drafts M(t) and A(t) M(t) (x Kg /sec).2 z=7.34 m..8.6.4.2 A(t) 6 z=7.34 m 4 2 8 6 4 2 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 t(days) 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 t(days).4.2 m c (t)(x Kg /sec)..8.6.4.2 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 t(days) Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.6/46

Long time portraits of ql (t), qv (t) and T(t) 25 2 z=57 m z=57 m qv (x -6 kg/kg) 5 8 6 4 2 5 5 55 6 65 t (day) 7 75 98 2 8 4 6 8 2 22 24 26 t (day) 292.4 z=57 m 292.2 292 29.8 T ( K) ql (x -6 kg/kg) 2 29.6 29.4 29.2 29 29.8 2 4 6 8 2 t (day) 22 24 26 Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.7/46

short time portraits of q l (t), q v (t) and T(t) q l (x -6 kg/kg) 2 8 z=57 m 6 4 2 8 6 4 2 5 5 52 53 54 55 t (day) q v (x -6 kg/kg) z=57 m 9 8 7 6 5 4 5 52 54 56 58 6 t (day) 29.9 29.8 z=57 m 29.7 T ( K) 29.6 29.5 29.4 29.3 29.2 5 5 52 53 54 55 t (day) Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.8/46

Distribution of CAPE and LNB 3 25 CAPE (J Kg - ) 2 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 time (day) CAPE p CAPE r.4.3.2.25 P(CAPE)..8.6.4 P(LNB).2.5..2.5 5 5 2 25 3 CAPE (J Kg - ) 5 5 2 25 3 35 LNB (m) Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.9/46

Short and long wave heating rates 5 4 3 2 - -2 22 22.5 22 22.5 222 222.5 223 223.5 224 t (day) M(t) (x 8 Kg s - ) Q L (K/day) Q S (K/day) 2 2 5 5 z (Km) z (Km) 5 5-5 -4-3 -2-2 < Q L > (K/day) -.5 - -.5.5.5 2 2.5 3 < Q S > (K/day) Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.2/46

Adjustment time.8.6 z=57 m z=4989.53 m z=843.6 m z=4. m C QT M (τ).4.2 -.2 -.4 -.6 5 5 2 25 3 35 4 45 τ (hours) C QT M(τ) = Q T (t) M(t + τ) σ QT σ M The adjustment time of the total heating rate Q T = Q S + Q L and the mass flux at various altitudes. The τ adj varies in the range of 2 4 hours. Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.2/46

Auto-correlation of up-drafts M C M (,τ).8.6.4.2 -.2 2 3 4 5 6 7 τ (hours) z=56.9 m z=4989.53 z=99 m z=29 m C M (,τ).9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2..5.5 2 2.5 3 τ (hours) z=56.9 m z=4989.53 z=99 m z=29 m C M (δ, τ) = M(z, t) M(z + δ, t + τ) σ M (z)σ M (z + δ) where M M M and is a time average. Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.22/46

Auto-correlation of up-drafts A C A (,τ).8.6.4.2 -.2 2 3 4 5 6 7 τ (hours) z=56.9 m z=4989.53 z=99 m z=29 m C A (,τ).9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2..5.5 2 2.5 3 τ (hours) z=56.9 m z=4989.53 z=99 m z=29 m Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.23/46

Auto-correlation of up-drafts m c.8 z=56.9 m z=4989.53 z=99 m z=29 m.8 z=56.9 m z=4989.53 z=99 m z=29 m.6.6 C mc (,τ).4 C mc (,τ).4.2.2 -.2 2 3 4 5 6 7 -.2.5.5 2 2.5 3 τ (hours) τ (hours) Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.24/46

Auto-correlation of q v.2.8.6 z=99 m.5.95 z=57 m z=4989.53 m z=843 m C qv (δ,τ).4.2 -.2 C qv (,τ).9.85.8 -.4 2 3 4 5 6 7.75.2.4.6.8 τ (day) τ (day) Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.25/46

Auto-correlation of q l.8 z=843 m.8 z=57 m z=4989.53 m z=843 m.6.6 C ql (,τ).4.2 C ql (,τ).4.2 -.2 -.2 -.4 2 3 4 5 6 7 -.4..2.3.4.5.6.7 τ (day) τ (day) Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.26/46

Auto-correlation of T.2.8.6 z=843 m.2.8 z=57 m z=843 m z=4 m C T (,τ).4.2 C T (,τ).6.4 -.2 -.4.2 -.6 2 3 4 5 6 7 -.2.5.5 2 τ (day) τ (day) Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.27/46

CAPE auto-correlation.8.9.6.8 C cape (,τ).4.2 C cape (,τ).7.6 -.2.5 -.4.4 -.6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.3.2.4.6.8 τ (days) τ (days) Speculation: τ rad = H2 ρc p (dθ/dz) Q rad Assuming Q rad = 25Wm 2, H = 5Km, ρ =.6kgm 3, dθ/dz = 3Kkm gives w s.5cms and τ rad 3 days. Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.28/46

Spatio-temporal delayed correlation function C M (δ,τ).9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2..2.4.6.8 τ (hours) δ= m δ=84.2 m δ=586.47 m δ=2229.68 m δ=2823.34 m δ=343.63 m z=4989.53 m δ(m) 4 35 3 25 2 5 5 w * =5.5 m/s δ= w * τ max.2.4.6.8..2.4.6.8 τ max ( hours) 6 4 2 z (km) 8 6 4 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 <w c > (m/s) Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.29/46

Information transport in A u < A(z,t) A(z+δ,t+τ) >.9.8.7.6.5.4.3 δ= m δ=522.5 m δ=24.5 m δ=89.3 m δ=262.97 m δ=3472.62 m z=56 m < A(z,t) A(z+δ,t+τ) >.9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2 δ= m δ=84.2 m δ=586.47 m δ=2229.68 m δ=2823.34 m δ=343.63 m z=4989.53 m.2...2.4.6.8.2.4.6.8 τ (hours) τ (hours) < A(z,t) A(z+δ,t+τ) >.9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2..2.4.6.8 τ (hours) δ= m δ=597.6 m δ=96.85 m δ=796.84 m δ=2396.84 m δ=2996.84 m z=843.6 m Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.3/46

Information transport in M u < M(z,t) M(z+δ,t+τ) >.9.8.7.6.5.4.3 δ= m δ=522.5 m δ=24.5 m δ=89.3 m δ=262.97 m δ=3472.62 m z=56 m < M(z,t) M(z+δ,t+τ) >.9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2 δ= m δ=84.2 m δ=586.47 m δ=2229.68 m δ=2823.34 m δ=343.63 m z=4989.53 m.2...2.4.6.8.2.4.6.8 τ (hours) τ (hours) < M(z,t) M(z+δ,t+τ) >.9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2..2.4.6.8 τ (hours) δ= m δ=597.6 m δ=96.85 m δ=796.84 m δ=2396.84 m δ=2996.84 m z=843.6 m Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.3/46

Information transport in W u < w(z,t) w(z+δ,t+τ) >.8.6.4.2 δ= m δ=522.5 m δ=24.5 m δ=89.3 m δ=262.97 m δ=3472.62 m z=56 m < w(z,t) w(z+δ,t+τ) >.8.6.4.2 δ= m δ=84.2 m δ=586.47 m δ=2229.68 m δ=2823.34 m δ=343.63 m z=4989.53 m -.2.2.4.6.8 -.2.2.4.6.8 τ (hours) τ (hours) < w(z,t) w(z+δ,t+τ) >.8.6.4.2 δ= m δ=597.6 m δ=96.85 m δ=796.84 m δ=2396.84 m δ=2996.84 m z=843.6 m -.2.2.4.6.8 τ (hours) Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.32/46

Mean characteristics 25 25 2 2 z (Km) 5 z (Km) 5 5 5..2.3.4.5.6 2 3 4 5 6 <M> (Kg m -2 s - ) <A> Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.33/46

N and σ c 4 2 2 8 z (Km) 8 6 z (Km) 6 4 4 2 2.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5.5.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 <N> <σ c > (x 4x 6 m 2 ) Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.34/46

Fat tails of marginal PDF of up-draft area coverage P(A;z)... z=56 m z=264 m z=429.88 m P(A;z)... z=429.88 m z=583 m z=729 m z=843 m z=96 m z=8 m e-4 e-4 e-5 5 5 2 e-5 2 3 4 5 6 A A. z=8 m z=2 m z=32 m z=44 m z=56 m P(A;z).. e-4 e-5 2 3 4 5 6 A Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.35/46

Altitude variability of total Mass flux PDF z = 57 m z = 2976.26 m 6 4 Measured P(M) at z=57 m Fit with free M and N Prediction with measured M and N 4 2 Measured P(M) at z=2976 m Fit with free M and N Prediction with measured M and N 2 8 P(M;z) 8 P(M;z) 6 6 4 4 2 2.2.4.6.8..2.4.6.8.2 M (x Kg s ).5..5.2.25 M (x Kg s ) Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.36/46

P(M,z) z = 4989.5 m z = 697.73 m 4 2 Measured P(M) at z=4989.53 m Fit with free M and N Prediction with measured M and N 25 Measured P(M) at z=697.73 m Fit with free M and N Prediction with measured M and N 2 8 5 P(M;z) P(M;z) 6 4 5 2.5..5.2.25.3 M (x Kg s ).5..5.2.25.3 M (x Kg s ) Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.37/46

P(M,z) z = 87.3 m z = 99. m 25 Measured P(M) at z=843.6 m Fit with free M and N Prediction with measured M and N 35 3 Measured P(M) at z=99 m Fit with free M and N Prediction with measured M and N 2 25 5 2 P(M;z) P(M;z) 5 5 5.5..5.2.25.3.35 M (x Kg s ).5..5.2.25.3 M (x Kg s ) Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.38/46

P(M,z) z = 4. m z = 29. m 5 45 Measured P(M) at z=4 m Fit with free M and N Prediction with measured M and N 7 6 Measured P(M) at z=29 m Fit with free M and N Prediction with measured M and N 4 35 5 3 4 P(M;z) 25 P(M;z) 2 3 5 2 5.5..5.2.25.3 M (x Kg s ).5..5.2.25 M (x Kg s ) Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.39/46

Mass flux variance 4 2 <N><(δM) 2 >/<M> 2 z (Km) 8 6 4 2.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 The scaling of the variance of total mass flux and number of active grids in different heights with the Craig and Cohen prediction: (δm) 2 M 2 = 2 N Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.4/46

Mass flux Skewness 4 2 <N> 2 <(δm) 3 >/<M> 3 z (Km) 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 2 4 The prediction: (δm) 3 M 3 = 6 N 2 Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.4/46

Clustering degree If N(A) is the number of clouds in any sub-area A S then P p [N(A) = k] is defined by P p [N(A) = k] = (γ A )k e γ A k! for k =,,, where γ A is the average number of clouds in the sub-area with size A. Centered on any arbitrary cloud we define the probability of finding the farthest neighboring cloud with a given Euclidean distance less than r, i.e. Π < p (r). Π < p (r) = Π> p (r) = P p(n(a) = ) = e γπr2, where A = πr 2 is used. For obtaining the clustering degree one measures directly the cumulative probability of having k clouds inside a ball of radius r centered around any existing cloud in each altitude. Then χ(r) = Π< (r) Π < p (r). Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.42/46

Clustering I Π < (r)/π < p (r) 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2.5.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 r (Km) z=233 m In a radius of around km any cloud is surrounded with more neighboring clouds than a Poisson distribution predicts. Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.43/46

Clustering II.8.6.4 56.9 m <N>=5.288 <N>=5.286.25.2 z=2976.26 m <N>=3.58 <N>=3.535 P(N,z).2..8.6 P(N,z).5..4.5.2 2 4 6 8 2 2 4 6 8 2 N N 4 35 σ Ν 2 <N> 3 z (Km) 25 2 5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.44/46

Summary Analysis of the time scales shows that a state of quasi-equilibrium establishes in our CRM simulation with diurnal forcing. The response of the total up-draft mass flux to the total heating rate at all heights indicates to a range of 2 4 hours adjusting time. The statistics of the total up-draft mass flux is qualitatively consistent with the predictions of the Cohen and Craig (26). The Gibbs theory under-estimates the variance and skewness of the total mass flux. Analysis of our CRM simulation shows that the non-interacting assumption employed in the Craig and Cohen theory does not hold as we demonstrate the clouds preferentially cluster. Mass flux fluctuation in a cloud resolving simulation with diurnal forcing p.45/46