1 / 48

Dr. Matt Gilmore DAS/UIUC

Precipitation Uncertainty due to Variations in Particle Parameters within a Simple Microphysics Scheme. Dr. Matt Gilmore DAS/UIUC. Presented 10 Dec 2007. (Photo Credit: NCAR/NSF). Collaborators. Jerry Straka - OU School of Meteorology Erik Rasmussen - OU/NSSL Special Thanks to

olaf
Download Presentation

Dr. Matt Gilmore DAS/UIUC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Precipitation Uncertainty due to Variations in Particle Parameters within a Simple Microphysics Scheme Dr. Matt Gilmore DAS/UIUC Presented 10 Dec 2007 (Photo Credit: NCAR/NSF)

  2. Collaborators • Jerry Straka - OU School of Meteorology • Erik Rasmussen - OU/NSSL Special Thanks to Bob Wilhelmson, Adam Houston, Leigh Orf, Ted Mansell, Lou Wicker Sue van den Heever

  3. Purpose • Test precip. sensitivity to hail, snow, and rain particle characteristics in a single-moment bulk ice microphysics package (used in WRF) • Can we trust precipitation forecasts from such models? Tornado forecasts? • Motivate the use of more sophisticated microphysics

  4. National Hail Research Experiment1972-1974, 1976, Grover, CO • Examined the influence of cloud seeding on hailfall (Photo Credit: NCAR/NSF) (Photo Credit: NCAR/NSF) Former division that worked on NHRE became MMM.

  5. Prediction of Precipitating Weather Systems - Cloud Microphysics and Precipitation “... the specific sources of error must be identified in current microphysical parameterizations, and physically based improvements to the model physics must be developed, particularly for ice formation...” (MMM/NCAR Science Plan, Oct. 2000) The Costner’s, April 1975 (Photo Credit: NCAR/NSF)

  6. Top-5 Severe Weather Hazards that Caused Crop and Property Damage (1995 - 2000) 27% Total=$11.2 Billion 25% $3.0 per Year $2.0 11% 9% 8% $1.0 $0.0 l t e d o i h a n o d g H a o a u l c n F i o r r r o r D u T H Average Cost Per Year (Billions of U.S. dollars) (NWS Natural Hazard Statistics)

  7. Hail Vulnerability • Tobacco, tea, and soybeans -> numerous 5 mm hail,(Changnon 1971, 1977, 1999) • Other crops, farm animals, & property -> larger hail (Largest from supercells; Changnon 2001) • Could we someday forecast hail occurrence & its characteristics? (Photo Credit: NCAR/NSF)

  8. Supercell Flooding Potential • Hypothesized that supercells might contribute to climatology of extreme rainfall (100-year recurrence interval). (Smith et al. 2001, J. Hydrometeor.) e.g., dense gauge network, max rainfall rates: Orlando, FL: 330 mm h–1 (26 Mar. 1992) Dallas, TX: 231 mm h–1 (5-6 May 1995) Would cloud model flooding predictions help?

  9. Hail Climatology # Hail Days/year (1901-1994) Mean Hail Diameter (cm) Changnon (1996) Changnon and Changnon (1999)

  10. Hail Forecasting • Climatology • Synoptic Pattern Based • See review articles by Longley and Thompson (1965); Johns and Doswell (1992). • Sounding Based • Edwards and Thompson (1998) demonstrated thermodynamic parameters to be practically useless in hail severity forecasting: VIL, CAPE, maximum parcel level, EL, convective cloud depth, wet-bulb zero, freezing level. Suggested that forecasts of storm rotation be made. Progress? • Reliable NWP cloud model forecasts? (We show …not yet)

  11. Numerical Experiments • Straka Atmospheric 3-D Cloud Model (SAM). Similar to the N-COMMAS model. • 6th order Crowley advection on scalars. 2nd order flux scheme on momentum. • Prognostic equations for u, v, w, q, p, TKE, qv, qc, qr. Optional ice physics.

  12. Model Set-up • 91x91x22 km domain • dx,dy = 1000 m, dz = 500 m • 1°C perturbation bubble. • Horizontally homogeneous environment

  13. Experimental Design • Idealized environments from Weisman and Klemp (1984). CAPE= 2200 J kg-1 T , Td Profile Hodographs

  14. Experimental Design • Microphysics scheme: • Three-class bulk ice scheme (ice, snow, and hail/ graupel). [Lin et al. (1983), “LFO”] Includes warm rain scheme for cloud and rain. Referred to herein as “3-ICE” • Scheme described in Gilmore et al. (2004; MWR, August issue) • Similar schemes still being used (Purdue-Lin and WSM-6)

  15. “3-ICE” Process Rates • 6 species • Single moment

  16. Many Limitations • Species are constrained to a predefined distribution function which experiences bulk/average fallout. • Scheme doesn’t predict number concentration or other moments. • Inconsistencies in diameter’s used for different processes (see McFarquhar & Black 2004; Potter 1991) • Efficiencies are assumed constant.

  17. Limitations (continued) • Only a single graupel/hail (qh) species. • Pick parameters such as the particle intercepts, densities, and fall velocity coefficients a priori (There are many more “gotchas”… but we will focus on the two above)

  18. Knight et al. (1982) .12 Relative Frequency .06 104 106 108 Intercept (dm-3 mm-1 ) NHRE-Motivated Sensitivity Testing

  19. Intercept Observations

  20. Density (kg m-3) Hail: 700 to 900 Graupel: 50 to 890 Hail: 400 Reference Pruppacher and Klett (1978) D. Zrnić, personal communication Particle Density Observations

  21. Standard LFO params no Species Size Distributions

  22. Species Fallspeeds • Larger and more dense fall faster

  23. 3x 4x

  24. 2 h accumulation of qr & qh

  25. N3r9 Peas Dimes Golfballs

  26. Peas Dimes

  27. Peas

  28. Hail counts over a 100 m2 area

  29. Midlevel Storm Structure and Surface Gust Front Evolution t=30 t=60 t=90 t=120

  30. Midlevel Storm Structure and Surface Gust Front Evolution Warmer! t=30 t=60 t=90 t=120

  31. Getting microphysics “right” is important for simulating the right downdraft Z ~ 500 m Z = 0 m

  32. Low-level Storm Structure and Surface Gust Front t=60 min (Us=50)

  33. Temporally and Horizontally-Averaged Vertical Profiles

  34. Temporally and Horizontally-Averaged Vertical Profiles (cont’d)

  35. Thus, N8r4 case has larger mass of qh but spread over larger area Smaller fall velocities

  36. Second Sensitivity Test • When the intercepts for the following species were increased individually by 2 orders of magnitude, then total precipitation fall decreased by... • Rain (N6 to N8): 3 Tg • Snow (N5 to N7): 4 Tg • Large Ice (N4 to N6): 12 Tg • Greatest sensitivity to qh

  37. Third Sensitivity Test • Change the ground-relative (GR) motion but not the vertical wind shear... • Result: point rainfall and hailfall doubles although total system mass preserved New GR-Motion: subtract 10 m s–1 from u windspeeds

  38. Results Summary • Mass fallout changes by a factor of 4 when the “large ice” distribution is varied within its observational limits. Weaker shear shows differences of a factor of 3. Us=20 m/s cases (not shown) had factor of 2. • Thus, sensitive to the vertical wind shear • Model precipitation is more sensitive to changes in the “large ice” distribution than the snow or rain distribution. • Precipitation depth is also a function of GR-storm motion.

  39. Conclusion • While simple bulk microphysics schemes such as LFO can be “tuned” and may have value in a research mode, they are probably not well suited for precipitation forecasts.

  40. Future Work: Improved schemes Multiple Moments for 3 or 4 ice categories • e.g., Ferrier (1994), Siefert and Beheng (2001) More ice categories (necessary - McCumber et al.) More liquid and ice categories, more moments, particle density prediction, Straka and Gilmore (2008)

  41. Two Moment, 5-ice, 3-rain scheme • Straka and Gilmore (2008) • Will this reduce the precipitation uncertainty?

  42. Joe and Jill Newham, April 1975 Thanks for your attention! (Photo Credit: NCAR/NSF)

  43. Rates t = 30 min

  44. Supplemental Figures Rates t = 30 min

  45. Rates t = 90 min

  46. Supplemental Figures Rates t = 90 min

  47. Light Rain Moderate Rain Heavy Rain Large Drops Rain/Hail Graupel/Small Hail Hail Dry Snow Wet Snow Horizontal Ice Vertical Ice Conventional versus Dual-Polarization Radar Conventional Radar Reflectivity Hydrometeor Classification Cimmaron, OK, az=148.2°, 2316 UTC 6 June 1996. (Adapted from Zrnic et al. 2001).

More Related