Open boundary conditions were developed for atmospheric large-eddy simulation (LES) models and implemented into the Dutch Atmospheric Large-Eddy Simulation model. The implementation was tested in a “Big Brother”-like setup, in which the simulation with open boundary conditions was forced by an identical control simulation with periodic boundary conditions. The results show that the open boundary implementation has minimal influence on the solution. Both the mean state and the turbulent structures are close to the control simulation, and disturbances at the in- and outflow boundaries are negligible. To emulate a setup in which the LES is coupled to a coarser model, the influence of coarse boundary input was tested by smoothing the output of the periodic control simulation both temporally and spatially before feeding it as input to the simulation with open boundary conditions. When smoothing is applied over larger spatial and longer temporal scales, disturbances start to form at the inflow boundary and an area exists where turbulence needs to develop. Adding synthetic turbulence to the smoothed input reduces the size of this area and the magnitude of the disturbances.@en

Most cumulus parametrizations today make use of a simple conceptual model of convection, called the mass-flux approach. This approach depicts convection as an ensemble of updrafts and downdrafts occurring within a model grid-box. The aim of this study is to determine convective mass-fluxes and their constituents on the scale of a 100 km GCM grid-box from a C-band polarimetric radar and thereafter investigate the relative role of area fraction and vertical velocity in determining the shape and magnitude of bulk mass-flux profiles. We make use of observational estimates of these quantities spanning 13 wet seasons in the tropical region of Darwin. Following a bulk approach, the results show that the distribution of mass-flux is positively skewed and its mean profile peaks at 4 km. This is the result of constant area fractions and increasing vertical velocities below that level. Above 4 km, in-cloud vertical velocity plays a marginal role compared to the convective area fraction in controlling mass-flux profiles.

@en