Abstract
This study demonstrates the characteristics of the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Double‐Moment 6‐Class (WDM6) Microphysics scheme for representing precipitating moist convection in 3D platforms, relative to the WSM6 scheme that has been widely used in the WRF community. For a case study of convective system over the Great Plains, the WDM6 scheme improves the evolutionary features such as the bow‐type echo in the leading edge of the squall line. We also found that the WRF with WDM6 scheme removes spurious oceanic rainfall that is a systematic defect resulting from the use of the WSM6 scheme alone. The simulated summer monsoon rainfall in East Asia is improved by weakening (strengthening) light (heavy) precipitation activity. These changes can be explained by the fact that the WDM6 scheme has a wider range in cloud and rain number concentrations than does the WSM6 scheme.
Highlights
The Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model [1] is a community numerical weather prediction (NWP) model that is applicable to various scales of weather phenomena
We focus on differences in the simulated precipitation with a possible physical reasoning on the fundamental differences in microphysics between the WSM6 and WRF Double-Moment 6-class (WDM6) schemes
The WRF model sensitivity to microphysical parameterization was analyzed from the WSM6 to the WDM6 scheme for the selected 3D test platforms
Summary
The Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model [1] is a community numerical weather prediction (NWP) model that is applicable to various scales of weather phenomena. As computer resources become available, the use of high-resolution WRF with a horizontal grid spacing of less than 5 km will improve forecasts for convective-scale phenomena, including explicit information about the timing, intensity, and mode of convection (e.g., [3, 4]). These previous reports demonstrate a 4-km resolution in WRF forecasts, which explicitly resolves convection yields for better guidance in precipitation forecasts, in comparison to 12-km resolution. Microphysical schemes are explicit, whereas convective parameterizations are implicit. Convective parameterizations become more inappropriate (and scientifically questionable given the underlying assumptions), whereas the explicit representation of microphysical processes can be computed for increasingly small clouds, cloud particles, water droplets, and so forth
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
