Abstract

This study examines eight microphysics schemes (Lin, WSM5, Eta, WSM6, Goddard, Thompson, WDM5, WDM6) in the Advanced Research Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF-ARW) for their reproduction of observed strong convection over the US Southern Great Plains (SGP) for three heavy precipitation events of 27–31 May 2001. It also assesses how observational analysis nudging (OBNUD), three-dimensional (3DVAR) and four-dimensional variational (4DVAR) data assimilation (DA) affect simulated cloud properties relative to simulations with no DA (CNTRL). Primary evaluation data were cloud radar reflectivity measurements by the millimetre cloud radar (MMCR) at the Central Facility (CF) of the SGP site of the ARM Climate Research Facility (ACRF). All WRF-ARW microphysics simulations reproduce the intensity and vertical structure of the first two major MMCR-observed storms, although the first simulated storm initiates a few hours earlier than observed. Of three organised convective events, the model best identifies the timing and vertical structure of the second storm more than 50 hours into the simulation. For this well-simulated cloud structure, simulated reflectivities are close to the observed counterparts in the mid- and upper troposphere, and only overestimate observed cloud radar reflectivity in the lower troposphere by less than 10 dBZ. Based on relative measures of skill, no single microphysics scheme excels in all aspects, although the WDM schemes show much-improved frequency bias scores (FBSs) in the lower troposphere for a range of reflectivity thresholds. The WDM6 scheme has improved FBSs and high simulated-observed reflectivity correlations in the lower troposphere, likely due to its large production of liquid water immediately below the melting level. Of all the DA experiments, 3DVAR has the lowest mean errors (MEs) and root mean-squared errors (RMSEs), although both the 3DVAR and 4DVAR simulations reduced noticeably the MEs for seven of eight microphysics schemes relative to CNTRL. Lower-tropospheric θe and convective available potential energy (CAPE) also are closer to the observations for the 4DVAR than CNTRL simulations.

Highlights

  • IntroductionCloud-resolving regional climate models are important tools to study climate processes and increase our understanding of the interactions between clouds, radiation and Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.(page number not for citation purpose)Z

  • We examine the ability of the Advanced Research Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) (ARW) model to reproduce the observed vertical structure of convection and clouds in the vicinity of the Central Facility (CF) for the warm-season heavy precipitation events of 27Á31 May 2001

  • There are some large discrepancies in the coherent spatial signals between the observed and simulated reflectivity values, most the simulations exhibited coherent reflectivity signals west of

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Cloud-resolving regional climate models are important tools to study climate processes and increase our understanding of the interactions between clouds, radiation and Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.(page number not for citation purpose)Z. Luo et al, 2006) or increase the reliability of high-impact precipitation forecasts in convection-resolving models (Hong et al, 2009). The Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF; Skamarock et al, 2008), which was developed as a community model, has had an exponential increase in the number of users over the past few years Jankov et al, 2007) or were not the major contributor to short-term forecast errors (Weisman et al, 2008). In realtime forecasting and model sensitivity studies, previous model verification analyses focused on the horizontal structure and temporal evolution of convection

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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