References

As we have currently no research environments, only the Radiatively Driven Circulation (RDC) articles which we have directly concerned are listed below.
Each page for the respective paper has a "Download PDF" button, so you can download a copy of the paper.
Since these are published papers, they may be freely cited, discussed, and used, of course, without regard to the RDC scheme license.

[UPDATED]
We have added a small list of classic papers related to this research field .

Papers on RDC

Before reading these papers, it is recommended to read the main article first, which outlines the same physics (in 3D realtime atmosphere) in more detail, to make them (in 2D mean atmosphere) easier to understand.

1. Structure of the Atmosphere in Radiative-Convective Equilibrium.
   Y. Iwasa, Y. Abe, and H. Tanaka.
   July 2002, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 59(14):2197-2226
   
   Basic discussions for the Radiatively Driven Circulation (RDC) mechanism.


2. Global Warming of the Atmosphere in Radiative Convective Equilibrium.
   Y. Iwasa, Y. Abe, and H. Tanaka.
   August 2004, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 61(15):1894-1910
   
   RDC application to the global warming.


3. Tropospheric Mid-Level Detrainment Flow Obtained from High-Resolution Non-Hydrostatic Atmospheric Model Experiments.
   Y. Iwasa, T. Arakawa, and A. Sumi.
   February 2012, Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan Ser II 90(1):11-33
   
   RDC application to the outflow of a larger scale at melting level from cumulus clouds in a more realistic cumulus resolving model.

Notes on the RDC Papers

There are currently no essential corrections on the articles, but a few points of note are worth mentioning:

• The system of equations describing the vertical two-dimensional models, DCM and KCM, used in Iwasa et al. 2002 and 2004 is not strictly unified into a right-hand system. Each model is described with a two-dimensional atmosphere in the x-z plane. But if x, y and z are latitude, longitude and altitude, respectively, it might have been correct to use the y-z plane to unify it with the right-hand system.


• Insufficient attention has been paid to the presentation format for the comparison between KCM and DCM results. For example, some distributions of the KCM results were simply shown over only half of the total horizontal area over which the calculation was actually performed (e.g., Figures 17 and 18 in Iwasa et al. 2002). We regret that it would have been easier for the reader to understand if all comparisons for DCM and KCM results had been shown in the same configuration, such as the comparison of humidity distributions between DCM and KCM (Figures 14 and 15 in Iwasa et al. 2002).


• To emphasize the dynamical circulation isolated from the RDC, a single circulation was depicted in Fig. 20 (b) in Iwasa et al. (2002). Although we added a note to this, "the convective circulation in (b) is drawn as a single circulation for convenience, but it may be complex and is not investigated completely in this study", it was not appropriate and was misleading. We should have depicted as a dynamical circulation a mass of fine vortices confined only to the interior of the cumulus domain.


• In the article of Iwasa et al. 2004, there is a correction on our wording. Section 7 was titled as "Subcloud warming effect" but we would like to correct it to "Subcloud-layer warming effect". The phenomenon described in Section 7 should be referred to, not as "subcloud warming effect", but as "subcloud-layer warming effect".


• To show that relative humidity does not change with warming, we have shown Fig. 11 in Iwasa et al. 2004. We intended to show that for points P and P' with the same optical thickness, the atmospheric structure is perfectly the same under different warming conditions. However, as in the alternative figure shown below, you may find it easier to understand if the point P in the atmosphere for which the relative humidity is considered is fixed in space, although the point P may have different optical thickness values in the different warming conditions, Normal and Warmed.
  
  

  Figure 11 in Iwasa et al. (2004) with modifications.
  

  [NOTE]
  Please note that, in the figures on the right for the warmed condition, the relative humidity at point P should be noted as h'_P instead of h_P. Sorry about that.

  In general, the relative humidity h_P at a point P of interest at height z_P is given by the ratio of the saturated mixing ratio q_v^*(z_D) at the detrainment point D at height z_D of the air parcel reaching P to the saturated mixing ratio q_v^*(z_P) at point P. Unlike the original Figure 11 in the paper, here the point P is assumed to be fixed in space.

  • TOP LEFT:
    In DD/CCC, the air parcel detrains at altitude z_D near the cloud top because it loses buoyancy there. The detrained air parcel reaches point P via such a large drop from z_D to z_P, that the relative humidity h_P at point P is small. Thus, the atmosphere becomes dry.
  
  
  • BOTTOM LEFT:
    In RDC, the air parcel reaching P detrains through the cumulus flank at low altitude z_D. Therefore, the relative humidity h_P at P, the ratio of the saturated mixing ratio q_v^*(z_D) at D to that q_v^*(z_P) at P, does not decrease. It provides a humid atmosphere.
  
  
  • COMPARISON between the LEFT figures:
    Even under normal conditions, DD/CCC provides a very dry atmosphere, which is one of the problems with the current cumulus parameterization. On the other hand, RDC provides a much more humid atmosphere.
  
  
  • TOP RIGHT (1):
    When warming occurs, in DD/CCC, the cloud top altitude increases, which also increases the detrainment altitude D' of the air parcel reaching P, resulting in even lower relative humidity at P. The atmosphere is predicted to dry out.
  
  
  • TOP RIGHT (2):
    During warming, in DD/CCC, air with a lower saturated mixing ratio, determined by higher cloud top altitudes, fills the atmosphere, resulting in a decrease in the amount of water vapor, a greenhouse gas. This implies a NEGATIVE water vapor feedback on warming.
  
  
  • BOTTOM RIGHT (1):
    When warming occurs, RDC does not significantly change the detrainment altitude D' of the air parcel reaching P from the normal altitude D. This means that the relative humidity h'_P at P remains almost the same as h_P.
  
  
  • BOTTOM RIGHT (2):
    During warming, an increase in temperature, the conservation of relative humidity means that the water vapor mixing ratio will increase at an accelerated rate, i.e., the water vapor distribution in RDC will have a strong POSITIVE feedback on warming.
  
  
  • COMPARISON between the RIGHT figures:
    Thus, the RDC scheme solves the atmospheric desiccation problem that occurs in DD/CCC. Accelerated warming in the real atmosphere can be interpreted as being caused by the strong positive water vapor feedback that RDC provides. DD/CCC cannot predict this.

Related Papers

In writing this web site, citations to papers by authors other than ourselves are kept to a minimum because of the copyright claim on this site. However, for the convenience of the reader, we have included below a small list of some reference papers dealing with the effect of cumulus clouds on climate change, especially on global warming. Of course, these papers are outside the scope of our copyright claims. Please note that they are all "classics" as we have not been updated with the latest reports due to the lack of our research environment.

4. We remember that the results of a high-resolution simulation of the motion of an axisymmetric heat-moist plume in the field of Earth's atmosphere, assuming a cumulus cloud, should have been already reported in the middle of the 20th century.
   The results showed only mixing processes and were not accompanied by any kind of detrainment flow out of the plume.
   This is good evidence that dynamic detrainment does not occur in atmospheric fields where the radiative cooling field is not considered.
   It may not be an atmospheric science paper, but a computer science or fluid dynamics paper.
   If you find the article, please let us know.


5. Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Convective Adjustment.
   S. Manabe and R.F. Strickler.
   July 1964, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 21(4):361-385
   
   Convective adjustment.


6. Interaction of a Cumulus Cloud Ensemble with the Large-Scale Environment, Part I
   A. Arakawa and W.H. Schubert,
   April 1974, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 31(3):674-701
   
   The basics of Arakawa-Schubert cumulus parameterization based on dynamical detrainment.


7. Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming.
   R.S. Lindzen,
   March 1990, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 71(3):288-299
   
   Possible negative water vapor feedback due to cumulus clouds based on dynamical detrainment.


8. REVIEW ARTICLE
   The Cumulus Parameterization Problem: Past, Present, and Future
   Arakawa (2004)
   
   A review of the difficult status of cumulus parameterization research based on dynamical detrainment.

Exhibited on 2022/07/31
Last updated on 2025/01/24
Copyright(C)2022-2025 jos <jos@kaleidoscheme.com> All rights reserved.