J. John Yio
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by J. John Yio.
Monthly Weather Review | 2001
Minghua Zhang; J. L. Lin; Richard T. Cederwall; J. John Yio; S. C. Xie
Abstract Motivated by the need to obtain accurate objective analysis of field experimental data to force physical parameterizations in numerical models, this paper first reviews the existing objective analysis methods and interpolation schemes that are used to derive atmospheric wind divergence, vertical velocity, and advective tendencies. Advantages and disadvantages of different methods are discussed. It is shown that considerable uncertainties in the analyzed products can result from the use of different analysis. The paper then describes a hybrid approach to combine the strengths of the regular grid and the line-integral methods, together with a variational constraining procedure for the analysis of field experimental data. In addition to the use of upper-air data, measurements at the surface and at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) are used to constrain the upper-air analysis to conserve column-integrated mass, water, energy, and momentum. Analyses are shown for measurements taken in the Atmospheric Ra...
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society | 2002
Kuan Man Xu; Richard T. Cederwall; Leo J. Donner; Wojciech W. Grabowski; Françoise Guichard; Daniel E. Johnson; Marat Khairoutdinov; Steven K. Krueger; Jon Petch; David A. Randall; Charles Seman; Wei-Kuo Tao; Donghai Wang; Shao Cheng Xie; J. John Yio; Minghua Zhang
SUMMARY This paper reports an intercomparison study of midlatitude continental cumulus convection simulated by eight two-dimensional and twothree-dimensional cloud-resolving models (CRMs), driven by observed large-scale advective temperature and moisture tendencies, surface turbulent euxes, and radiative-heating proe les during three sub-periods of the summer 1997 Intensive Observation Period of the US Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program. Each sub-period includes two or three precipitation events of various intensities over a span of 4 or 5 days. The results can be summarized as follows. CRMs can reasonably simulate midlatitude continental summer convection observed at the ARM Cloud and Radiation Testbed site in terms of the intensity of convective activity, and the temperature and specie c-humidity evolution. Delayed occurrences of the initial precipitation events are a common feature for all three sub-cases among the models. Cloud mass e uxes, condensate mixing ratios and hydrometeor fractions produced by all CRMs are similar. Some of the simulated cloud properties such as cloud liquid-water path and hydrometeor fraction are rather similar to available observations. All CRMs produce large downdraught mass euxes with magnitudes similar to those of updraughts, in contrast to CRM results for tropical convection. Some inter-model differences in cloud properties are likely to be related to those in the parametrizations of microphysical processes. There is generally a good agreement between the CRMs and observations with CRMs being signie cantly better than single-column models (SCMs), suggesting that current results are suitable for use in improving parametrizations in SCMs. However, improvements can still be made in the CRM simulations; these include the proper initialization of the CRMs and a more proper method of diagnosing cloud boundaries in model outputs for comparison with satellite and radar cloud observations.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society | 2004
Thomas J. Phillips; Gerald L. Potter; David L. Williamson; Richard T. Cederwall; James S. Boyle; Michael Fiorino; J. J. Hnilo; Jerry G. Olson; Shaocheng Xie; J. John Yio
To significantly improve the simulation of climate by general circulation models (GCMs), systematic errors in representations of relevant processes must first be identified, and then reduced. This endeavor demands that the GCM parameterizations of unresolved processes, in particular, should be tested over a wide range of time scales, not just in climate simulations. Thus, a numerical weather prediction (NWP) methodology for evaluating model parameterizations and gaining insights into their behavior may prove useful, provided that suitable adaptations are made for implementation in climate GCMs. This method entails the generation of short-range weather forecasts by a realistically initialized climate GCM, and the application of six hourly NWP analyses and observations of parameterized variables to evaluate these forecasts. The behavior of the parameterizations in such a weather-forecasting framework can provide insights on how these schemes might be improved, and modified parameterizations then can be test...
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society | 2002
Shaocheng Xie; Kuan Man Xu; Richard T. Cederwall; Peter Bechtold; Anthony D. Del Genio; Stephen A. Klein; Douglas G. Cripe; Steven J. Ghan; David Gregory; Sam F. Iacobellis; Steven K. Krueger; Ulrike Lohmann; Jon Petch; David A. Randall; Leon D. Rotstayn; Richard C. J. Somerville; Yugesh C. Sud; Knut von Salzen; G. K. Walker; Audrey B. Wolf; J. John Yio; Guang J. Zhang; Minghua Zhang
This study reports the Single-Column Model (SCM) part of the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM)/the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX) Cloud System Study (GCSS) joint SCM and Cloud-Resolving Model (CRM) Case 3 intercomparison study, with a focus on evaluation of cumulus parametrizations used in SCMs. Fifteen SCMs are evaluated under summertime midlatitude continental conditions using data collected at the ARM Southern Great Plains site during the summer 1997 Intensive Observing Period. Results from ten CRMs are also used to diagnose problems in the SCMs. It is shown that most SCMs can generally capture well the convective events that were well-developed within the SCM domain, while most of them have difficulties in simulating the occurrence of those convective events that only occurred within a small part of the domain. All models significantly underestimate the surface stratiform precipitation. A third of them produce large errors in surface precipitation and thermodynamic structures. Deficiencies in convective triggering mechanisms are thought to be one of the major reasons. Using a triggering mechanism that is based on the vertical integral of parcel buoyant energy without additional appropriate constraints results in overactive convection, which in turn leads to large systematic warm/dry biases in the troposphere. It is also shown that a non-penetrative convection scheme can underestimate the depth of instability for midlatitude convection, which leads to large systematic cold/moist biases in the troposphere. SCMs agree well quantitatively with CRMs in the updraught mass fluxes, while most models significantly underestimate the downdraught mass fluxes. Neglect of mesoscale updraught and downdraught mass fluxes in the SCMs contributes considerably to the discrepancies between the SCMs and the CRMs. In addition, uncertainties in the diagnosed mass fluxes in the CRMs and deficiencies with cumulus parametrizations are not negligible. Similar results are obtained in the sensitivity tests when different forcing approaches are used. Finally, sensitivity tests from an SCM indicate that its simulations can be greatly improved when its triggering mechanism and closure assumption are improved.
Journal of Geophysical Research | 2000
Steven J. Ghan; David A. Randall; Kuan-Man Xu; Richard T. Cederwall; Douglas G. Cripe; James J. Hack; Sam F. Iacobellis; Stephen A. Klein; Steven K. Krueger; Ulrike Lohmann; John Pedretti; Alan Robock; Leon D. Rotstayn; Richard C. J. Somerville; Georgiy L. Stenchikov; Y. C. Sud; G. K. Walker; Shaocheng Xie; J. John Yio; Minghua Zhang
Eleven different single-column models (SCMs) and one cloud ensemble model (CEM) are driven by boundary conditions observed at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program southern Great Plains site for a 17 day period during the summer of 1995. Comparison of the model simulations reveals common signatures identifiable as products of errors in the boundary conditions. Intermodel differences in the simulated temperature, humidity, cloud, precipitation, and radiative fluxes reflect differences in model resolution or physical parameterizations, although sensitive dependence on initial conditions can also contribute to intermodel differences. All models perform well at times but poorly at others. Although none of the SCM simulations stands out as superior to the others, the simulation by the CEM is in several respects in better agreement with the observations than the simulations by the SCMs. Nudging of the simulated temperature and humidity toward observations generally improves the simulated cloud and radiation fields as well as the simulated temperature and humidity but degrades the precipitation simulation for models with large temperature and humidity biases without nudging. Although some of the intermodel differences have not been explained, others have been identified as model problems that can be or have been corrected as a result of the comparison.
Monthly Weather Review | 2000
Hung-Neng S. Chin; Daniel J. Rodriguez; Richard T. Cederwall; Catherine C. Chuang; Allen S. Grossman; J. John Yio; Qiang Fu; Mark A. Miller
Abstract Using measurements from the Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program, a modified ground-based remote sensing technique is developed and evaluated to study the impacts of the subadiabatic character of continental low-level stratiform clouds on microphysical properties and radiation budgets. Airborne measurements and millimeter-wavelength cloud radar data are used to validate retrieved microphysical properties of three stratus cloud systems occurring in the April 1994 and 1997 intensive observation periods at the Southern Great Plains site. The addition of the observed cloud-top height into the Han and Westwater retrieval scheme eliminates the need to invoke the adiabatic assumption. Thus, the retrieved liquid water content (LWC) profile is represented as the product of an adiabatic LWC profile and a weighting function. Based on in situ measurements, two types of weighting functions are considered in this study: one is associated with a subadiabatic condition involving cloud...
Journal of Geophysical Research | 2005
Shaocheng Xie; Minghua Zhang; Mark Branson; Richard T. Cederwall; Anthony D. Del Genio; Zachary A. Eitzen; Steven J. Ghan; Sam F. Iacobellis; Karen Johnson; Marat Khairoutdinov; Stephen A. Klein; Steven K. Krueger; Wuyin Lin; Ulrike Lohmann; Mark A. Miller; David A. Randall; Richard C. J. Somerville; Y. C. Sud; G. K. Walker; Audrey B. Wolf; Xiaoqing Wu; Kuan Man Xu; J. John Yio; Guang Zhang; Junhua Zhang
Journal of Geophysical Research | 2005
Kuan-Man Xu; Minghua Zhang; Zachary A. Eitzen; Steven J. Ghan; Stephen A. Klein; Xiaoqing Wu; Shaocheng Xie; Mark Branson; Anthony D. Del Genio; Sam F. Iacobellis; Marat Khairoutdinov; Wuyin Lin; Ulrike Lohmann; David A. Randall; Richard C. J. Somerville; Y. C. Sud; G. K. Walker; Audrey B. Wolf; J. John Yio; Junhua Zhang
Archive | 2001
Kuan-Man Xu; Richard T. Cederwall; Leo J. Donner; Wojciech W. Grabowski; Françoise Guichard; Daniel E. Johnson; Marat Khairoutdinov; Steven K. Krueger; Jon Petch; David A. Randall; Charles Seman; Wei-Kuo Tao; Donghai Wang; Shao Cheng Xie; J. John Yio; Minghua Zhang
Journal of Geophysical Research | 2006
Shaocheng Xie; Stephen A. Klein; Minghua Zhang; J. John Yio; Richard T. Cederwall; Renata McCoy