+ All Categories
Transcript
Page 1: Drizzle comparisons

Ewan O’Connor, Robin Hogan, Anthony Illingworth

Drizzle comparisons

Page 2: Drizzle comparisons

Overview– Do operational forecast models simulate drizzle correctly?

• Models simulate drizzle through precipitation scheme• Treat coalescence drizzle as light rain

– Observed liquid water content/flux• Cloud LWC retrieval• Drizzle liquid water flux retrieval

– Compare observations and models• Daily basis• Monthly means

– Drizzle drop size• Explicit in Met Office model• Effect of changing drizzle number concentration

Page 3: Drizzle comparisons

Liquid water contentMethod of Albrecht et al. (1990), Boers et al. (2000)

– Use lidar/radar to determine cloud boundaries– Assume linear increase of LWC with height– Scale LWC profile to match LWP from radiometers

LWC

Heig

ht

Cloud base(lidar)

Cloud top (radar)

Modellevels

Page 4: Drizzle comparisons

Liquid water content– LWC not retrieved in rain

Page 5: Drizzle comparisons

Drizzle below cloudDoppler radar and lidar - 4 observables (O’Connor et al. 2005)

• Radar/lidar ratio provides information on particle size

Page 6: Drizzle comparisons

Drizzle below cloudDoppler radar and lidar - 4 observables (O’Connor et al. 2005)

• Radar/lidar ratio provides information on particle size

Retrieve three components of drizzle DSD (N, D, μ).• Can then calculate LWC, LWF and vertical air velocity, w.

Page 7: Drizzle comparisons

Liquid water flux– LWF retrieved below cloud base and in the absence of rain

Page 8: Drizzle comparisons

ECMWF model– Cloud similar to observations

Page 9: Drizzle comparisons

Met Office mesoscale model– Cloud similar to observations

Page 10: Drizzle comparisons

Met Office global model– Has rain at correct time!

Page 11: Drizzle comparisons

Meteo France ARPEGE model– Thin layers - can be one grid box thick

Page 12: Drizzle comparisons

Compare obs/models– Models have similar LWC / LWP– Models overestimate precipitation

Page 13: Drizzle comparisons

Compare daily means– Models have similar LWC / LWP– Models overestimate precipitation

Page 14: Drizzle comparisons

Monthly comparisons

– ECMWF model– Observations

Page 15: Drizzle comparisons

Monthly comparisons

– Met Office mesoscale model– Observations

Page 16: Drizzle comparisons

Monthly comparisons

– Met Office global model– Observations

Page 17: Drizzle comparisons

Monthly comparisons

– Meteo France ARPEGE model– Observations

Page 18: Drizzle comparisons

Drizzle drop size– Met Office model uses explicit size distributions– Treats all precipitation as rain

• Overestimates drop sizes • Underestimates evaporation

Disdrometer

Radar/lidar

Model

Page 19: Drizzle comparisons

Met Office diagnostic precipitation

– Met Office model uses explicit size – Treats all precipitation as rain

Page 20: Drizzle comparisons

Met Office diagnostic precipitation

– Met Office model uses explicit size– Treats all precipitation as rain

Page 21: Drizzle comparisons

Met Office diagnostic precipitation

– Met Office model uses explicit size– Treats all precipitation as rain

Page 22: Drizzle comparisons

Met Office diagnostic precipitation

– Met Office model uses explicit size– Treats all precipitation as rain

Page 23: Drizzle comparisons

Met Office diagnostic precipitation

– Met Office model uses explicit size– Treats all precipitation as rain

Page 24: Drizzle comparisons

Conclusion– Models have reasonable LWC

• Produce far too much drizzle• Precipitation reaches surface• Underestimate evaporation

– Met Office model• Overestimate of drizzle drop size


Top Related