the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 17 Mar 2025
Isentropic Mixing vs. Convection in CLaMS-3.0/MESSy: Evaluation Using Satellite Climatologies and In Situ Carbon Monoxide Observations
Abstract. Lagrangian modeling of transport, as implemented in the Chemical Lagrangian Model of the Stratosphere (CLaMS), connects the advective (reversible) component of transport along 3D trajectories with mixing, the irreversible component. Here, we investigate the interplay between strongly localized convective uplifts and large-scale flow dynamics in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (UTLS). We revisit the Lagrangian formulation of convection in CLaMS-3.0/MESSy, driven by ECMWF’s ERA5 reanalysis, and further develop the model. These developments include refining spatial resolution in the Planetary Boundary Layer (PBL) and decoupling the frequency of the adaptive grid procedure—which captures isentropic mixing and redefines Lagrangian air parcels—from the parameterization of convection.
To improve the model’s UTLS transport representation, particularly from the PBL over days to weeks, we derive zonally and seasonally resolved climatologies of CO partial columns (XCO, spanning 147 to 68 hPa) and compare them with Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) and Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE-FTS) observations, as well as in situ data. Incorporating a parameterization for unresolved convection significantly improves CO anomaly representation in the UTLS, particularly in capturing seasonal and spatial patterns. While the simulated absolute XCO values align better with ACE-FTS, the model reproduces MLS anomalies more accurately, suggesting MLS better represents CO variability. In situ observations in the boreal polar region generally support lower ACE-FTS CO values, while MLS better represents CO enhancements in air affected by the Asian summer monsoon above 10 km.
Competing interests: Author Marc von Hobe is a member of the editorial board of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.- Preprint
(10891 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 23 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1155', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Apr 2025
reply
Review of “Isentropic Mixing vs. Convection in CLaMS-3.0/MESSy: Evaluation
Using Satellite Climatologies and In Situ Carbon Monoxide
Observations” by Konopka et al.
This is a very well written paper which is easy to understand and I recommend it be accepted after very minor corrections noted below.
The hybrid grid used in the tropospheric portion of CLaMS blends kinematic and isentropic trajectory schemes to get around the conservation problems with potential temperature (q) in the troposphere and surface issues. The advantage of the isentropic schemes is that they are immune to gravity wave biases whereas kinematic schemes can suffer from these biases. For example, the vertical motion of a partially resolved gravity wave or convective complex can dominate the smaller motions associated with larger scale waves. This issue is discussed in the text, but the authors should also discuss how the model would work for orographic gravity waves. For convection, an alternate approach to using a hybrid coordinate is to use qe which automatically includes the latent heat energy. Convective parcels rise roughly to the q level that equivalent to qe at the surface. I was surprised that this idea wasn’t mentioned.
CLaMS, unlike most trajectory models, employs a mixing scheme where nearby parcels are ‘mixed’ as might occur in the actual atmosphere. The scheme also includes creation of new parcels as part of an entropy conserving regridding. The authors note that the regridding step is computationally costly since it involves identifying and estimating distance to the nearest neighbors. I have implemented regridding schemes using the Lyapunov approach (similar to the authors) and since my code was highly parallelized, the computational cost of regridding was larger than the cost just accumulating parcels. However, the cost of accumulating parcels for multi-year runs is also cost prohibitive. The authors do a good job describing their approach and are honest about the computational cost which can be reduced by adjusting the frequency of regridding.
The discussion of the three versions of CLaMS was very interesting and enlightening. Clearly CLaMS 3.0 is a step forward from early versions (Fig. 4, 5).
The test with CO simulations is also very interesting and a little confounding in that MLS and ACE-FTS don’t agree on the partial columns. The CLaMS simulation looks good when boundary CO is increased (an interesting result in itself). Comparison with in situ data is also useful showing the improvements in 3.0.
Overall this is an excellent paper. I have only two minor suggestions.
- Comment on how CLaMS hybrid coordinate deals with orographic gravity waves. This is probably the worst case scenarios for hybrid coordinates. I suggest an experiment where hybrid and isentropic calculations are compared near mountain ranges.
- Add black dots to the caption in Fig. 8.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1155-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 81 | 22 | 7 | 110 | 6 | 6 |
- HTML: 81
- PDF: 22
- XML: 7
- Total: 110
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 47 | 43 |
| Germany | 2 | 15 | 13 |
| undefined | 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Canada | 4 | 5 | 4 |
| China | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 47