Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />V"LUF.S.GE. 0_'000i:.ea.\T rr~i::" 39_00~tN <br />TOTAL CLOUD f IELf: lG/X:..: <br /> <br /> <br />----- <br /> <br /> <br />Y-Z PLOT AT X= 8.80KM TIME= <br />NO CONCENTRATION (PPB) <br /> <br />38.00MIN <br /> <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br />y IKMI <br /> <br />FIELD I1AX,HIN,DEL 6.271J99E+ee 1.5Q27.sE-BJ 5.B0ile6E-81 <br />CONT. "AX_l1tN.LEV 6.'01J8eE+88 5."90"6E~1J1 11 <br /> <br />Y-Z PLOT AT x= 8.80KM TIME= <br />TOTAL CLOUD FIELD (G/KGI <br /> <br />38.00MIN <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />Cf~~)) <br />~ <br /> <br />>: <br />"" 8 <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />o <br />o <br /> <br />. <br />8 <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br />Y IKMl <br />FIELD HAX."IH.DEL l.cagS4(.ee -1. J8718(-I. 1.2WHE~.1 <br />CONI. I1AX_HIH.LEV 1.37'$I8E.e. l.elllBE.ee 11 <br /> <br />Y-Z PLOT AT X= 8.80KM TIME= <br />N02 CONCENTRATION (PPB) <br /> <br />38.00MIN <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />>: <br />"" 8 <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />o <br />o <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />Y IKMl <br />FIELD "Ax."IN.OEl 6o.31188(+H 1.82264E-1I3 5.H8Z3E-1I <br />CONT. "AX."IH.lEY 6.MN8€+S8 5.IJ8INE-.' II <br /> <br />Figure 8 - 3D cloud depiction (top left) with 0.1 g/kg surface, 20 slice (top right) at X = 8.8 km through <br />cloud, 20 slice through NO field (bottom left), and slice through N02 field (bottom right). <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />al., 2001), and it had previously been modeled <br />(Skamarock et al., 2000). The storm was also <br />deemed suitable for simulation because the 3D <br />SEM only computes intracloud lightning and the <br />10 July storm was dominated by such flashes <br />(over 96% of total flashes were intracloud). The <br />simulation was run for three hours of cloud growth <br />and was initialized to produce three cells, following <br />Skamarock et al. (2000). <br />The model generated 1003 discharges <br />among the three cells while the observed, multicell <br />storm produced around 1800 flashes over the <br />same period (not counting short duration flashes, <br />which are not well understood and not simulated <br />with the current lightning scheme). Figure 9 <br />shows the energy dissipation per flash (in units of <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />1010 J, top left panel) as a function of time during <br />the integration and energy dissipation vs. charge <br />transfer (top right). Also shown are 3D plots of the <br />cloud (lower left), NO (middle), and N02 (lower <br />right) mixing ratios at 90-min simulation time. <br />These plots show that there is nearly an order of <br />magnitude range in the energy dissipated by the <br />simulated flashes. Also, the charge transfer and <br />energy dissipation are correlated. These results <br />are reasonable approximations to real intracloud <br />lightning, although the energy dissipation is on the <br />high side. The mesh plots show the three clouds <br />midway through the simulation. Although all three <br />clouds are still present, only the SE cloud remains <br />electrically active. This is evident in the plot of NO <br />mixing ratio, where the NO is only present in the <br /> <br />43 <br />