I20
Y
B
1
Y
.. e0 .
-U
B
IIN fhrl
fI(i. 4. (a) 'The sinusoidal surface heat flux I f ( 0 . r)adopcd for both thc thermodynamic ant1
thcrmul models. H(h: I ) (lull line) is the entrained heat flux derived from tlic Ihcmitdynamic
model and I f ( k I ) = O.ZH(0, r).(broken line) IS the entrained heat flux in tla simple therinal
niodel with A = 0.2. (b) AU, the Rtep in the potential temperature across the interlace at 2 = h,
for the trial thermodynamic model (lull line) and the simple thermal model w.ith A = 0.2
(broken line). (c) The warming of the cunvectivcly unstable boundary layer throughout the day
expressed 11s [O&) - OU]. for the trial thermodynamic model (full line) und the simple thermal
nitdcl with ,4 = 0.2 (hrtiken line).
information only. Figure 3h shows the variations with time of AV/V,. r(O)/p,
ittld T ( / I ) / ~ where 7 = I 't I and again the trends do not appear to be contrary
lo cxpctation. Figurc 4a shows the specified surface sensible heat flux
tl(0, 1 ) and the derived entrained heat flux H(h, t ) . Also given is H(h, r ) =
0.2fl(O. I ) from the thermal model and here we note the differences in shape
of the two curves for N(h, 1). In particular H(h. r ) from the ihermodynamic
model is not distributed symmctrically about r = 6 hr as is the H(h, r ) from