ABSTRACT - DRUM - University of Maryland
ABSTRACT - DRUM - University of Maryland
ABSTRACT - DRUM - University of Maryland
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
work by Dessler [2002], who used O 3 and CO as tracers <strong>of</strong> convection to show that<br />
significant detrainment was occurring near the tropopause, at potential temperatures<br />
well above those found in the boundary layer.<br />
3.5 Total height calculation<br />
In the previous section, the overshooting heights <strong>of</strong> convective clouds were<br />
estimated. If we also estimate the height <strong>of</strong> the anvil, it is possible to estimate the total<br />
height, which is the sum <strong>of</strong> the anvil height and the overshooting height. A simple<br />
adiabatic calculation can help estimate the height <strong>of</strong> the anvil. The temperature at 14<br />
km, the base <strong>of</strong> the TTL, is very close to that predicted by a moist adiabat rising from<br />
the surface. This is consistent with the fact that 14 km is approximately the upper limit<br />
<strong>of</strong> the LNB for deep convection. Thus, for altitudes near 14 km, we can use an<br />
adiabatic temperature pr<strong>of</strong>ile to convert temperature to altitude.<br />
To perform this calculation, two sources <strong>of</strong> error should be considered. First, this<br />
adiabatic temperature-altitude conversion is a little sensitive to the change <strong>of</strong> the<br />
surface temperature and the relative humidity (Fig. 3.8). Combined with the individual<br />
overshooting height errors discussed above, it can cause an error <strong>of</strong> 3-4 km in the total<br />
height calculation in our analysis. Second, because it is doubtful that the temperature at<br />
any level above 14 km could be colder than an adiabat, using the adiabatic altitude<br />
calculation provides a lower limit <strong>of</strong> the altitude, which implies a potential low bias in<br />
height. Figure 3.8 shows the total height calculated using the 2.5° × 2.5° NCEP<br />
59