The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A cumulus parameterization with a prognostic closure
Abstract
The paper describes the introduction of a prognostic cumulus kinetic energy (CKE) as a replacement for the quasi‐equilibrium closure hypothesis of Arakawa and Schubert (AS). In the original version of the AS parameterization, the cloud work function, a measure of the convective available potential energy, is assumed to be maintained at ‘small’ values through a quasi‐equilibrium between the cumulus convection and the ‘large‐scale forcing’. It is argued here, however, that the distinction between the convective and large‐scale processes is ambiguous and subjective. It is demonstrated that the need for such a distinction can be avoided by relaxing the quasi‐equilibrium assumption, through the introduction of a prognostic CKE; referred to as prognostic closure. A dimensional parameter, α, is introduced to relate the CKE to the square of the cloud‐base convective mass flux. It is shown that ‘adjustment time’ defined by AS is related to α, so that when the adjustment time approaches zero the prognostic closure reduces to quasi‐equilibrium closure. A second dimensional parameter, τ D, is used to determine the rate at which the CKE is dissipated. In the limit of small α and τ D, the convective mass flux is formally independent of both α τ D if the environmental sounding is assumed to be given, but in reality the results of a prognostic model do depend on these two parameters because they affect the time‐dependent sounding. For simplicity, a single constant value of α is used for all cloud types in tests with a general‐circulation model, and this gives reasonably good results. Larger values of α lead to more frequent shallow cumulus convection and a cooler and more humid troposphere, in which stratiform condensation is more active and more large‐scale precipitation can reach the surface. A longer dissipation time‐scale leads to a warmer tropical troposphere. The interactions between stratiform cloudiness and convection prove to be quite important, leading to the conclusion that the convection parametrization really cannot be evaluated independently of the stratiform cloud parametrization with which it interacts.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Atmospheric Modeling, Data Assimilation and Predictability
Kalnay, E. (2002) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511802270 · Cited by 3,391
Precipitation Characteristics in Eighteen Coupled Climate Models
Dai, A. (2006) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli3884.1 · Cited by 1,098
The Double-ITCZ Problem in IPCC AR4 Coupled GCMs: Ocean–Atmosphere Feedback Analysis
Lin, J.-L. (2007) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli4272.1 · Cited by 594
Representing Equilibrium and Nonequilibrium Convection in Large-Scale Models
Bechtold, P., Semane, N., Lopez, P., Chaboureau, J.-P., Beljaars, A., & Bormann, N. (2014) · Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences · doi:10.1175/jas-d-13-0163.1 · Cited by 451
Stevens, B. (2005) · Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences · doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.33.092203.122658 · Cited by 339
Metadata
- Authors
- Pan, D., & Randall, D. D. A.
- Venue
- Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1998-04
- Volume
- 124
- Issue
- 547
- Pages
- 949-981
- ISSN
- 0035-9009 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-870X
- OpenAlex
- W2110741152
- Cited by
- 251
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A cumulus parameterization with a prognostic closure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/qj.49712454714
- The paper
- Pan, D., & Randall, D. D. A. (1998). A cumulus parameterization with a prognostic closure. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712454714
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.