Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cold pools, formed under clouds by the evaporation of precipitation, play a central role in maintaining and organizing atmospheric convection. It is suspected that their absence in climate models may lead to significant errors in the representation of convection, such as the premature convection extinction after sunset. The introduction of a cold pool parameterization into the LMDZ climate model has significantly improved the representation of convection, in particular its diurnal cycle. Thanks to this indirect evaluation, the parameterization of cold pool was retained in the further versions of LMDZ. However, no evaluation of the representations of cold pools themselves was done so far. This work provides for the first time such an evaluation based on Large Eddy Simulation (LES). The evaluation is done both on a case of radiative–convective equilibrium that allows the study of convective processes in a well-controlled and quasi-stationary framework, without the influence of large-scale dynamics, and on the time-dependent continental case AMMA (African Monsoon Multidisciplinary Analysis), representative of typical Sahelian conditions with local initiation during the afternoon. First, we evaluate the physical relationships underlying the cold pool model in the LES, then, in a second step, its behavior when coupled with the deep convection scheme in the single-column version of LMDZ. The analyses carried out demonstrate the relevance of the assumptions underlying the parameterization. The initial version actually captures the main characteristics of LES cold pools but also exhibits some biases. We show how substantial modifications to the cold pool scheme and a readjustment of certain free parameters helped reduce those biases significantly. The remaining flaws could be corrected by adding convective mixing through thermal plumes within the cold pools and by modeling the evolution of cold pools number density rather than imposing it.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thiam et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: