1 / 15

Studying Hector: meteorology and tracer transport

Studying Hector: meteorology and tracer transport. Maria Russo 1 , Charles Chemel 2 , John Pyle 1 NCAS Climate, University of Cambridge NCAS Weather, University of Hertfordshire. Manchester, 21 May 2009. Overview. Hector case study 30 Nov ‘05. In collaboration with Charles Chemel

bly
Download Presentation

Studying Hector: meteorology and tracer transport

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. Studying Hector: meteorology and tracer transport Maria Russo1, Charles Chemel2, John Pyle1 NCAS Climate, University of Cambridge NCAS Weather, University of Hertfordshire Manchester, 21 May 2009

  2. Overview • Hector case study 30 Nov ‘05. In collaboration with Charles Chemel • Models: WRF and UKMO-UM at 1km resolution • Impact of Hector on UTLS water vapour • Effect of resolution and convective parametrisation on the vertical transport of tracers • Model: UKMO-UM at 60, 12 and 1km • Using passive tracers with 6hr lifetime to study fast transport processes

  3. “Quantifying the imprint of a severe Hector Thunderstorm during ACTIVE/SCOUT-O3 onto the Water Content in the UTLS”Chemel et al., Monthly Weather Review, in press 1. Hector case study: 30 Nov ’05 • Horizontal resolution: 1km • Vertical resolution in UTLS: 100m for WRF and 500m for UM • Simulation started: 28 Nov for WRF, 29 Nov for UM • Initial and lateral boundary data: ECMWF for WRF, UKMet Office for UM

  4. Precipitation rate (mm/hr) Radar data WRF UM

  5. Hygrometeors CPOL Radar data WRF UM

  6. The effect of Hector on the water vapour in the UTLS Water vapour difference between 18:30 and 15:30 LT

  7. Conclusions • Hector was simulated with WRF and UM and results have been compared to observations • Both models get a realistic timing of convection but WRF overestimates precipitation while the UM underestimates it. • The top of the storm is similar in the 2 models, but the vertical distribution of hygrometeors is quite different. • In both models Hector produces a moistening of the UTLS, although the moistening is larger with the UM than with WRF

  8. Effect of resolution and convective parametrisation on the vertical transport of tracers GLOBAL FORECAST ~60km 12km 1km

  9. Experimental setup 0Z 3Z 0Z 3h 45h 28/11/2005 30/11/2005 • 3 hour spin-up followed by 45 hour run (48h in total) • Convection: parametrized for 12, 60km, explicit for 1km • Initial conditions are the same for all resolutions • LBC for 12 and 1km are derived from the global model run • 4 passive tracers with 6h mean lifetime: zero initial concentration + tracer concentration in its source layer is kept fixed throughout the run.

  10. Tracer 1: 45h mean profile Domain Storm ------- Rain ------- No-rain

  11. Tracer 2: 45h mean profile Domain Storm ------- Rain ------- No-rain

  12. Tracer 3: 45h mean profile Domain Storm ------- Rain ------- No-rain

  13. Tracer 4: 45h mean profile Domain Storm ------- Rain ------- No-rain

  14. Effect of tracer lifetime:

  15. Conclusions • The vertical distribution of tracers (and cloud ice) is very similar in 12 and 60 km model runs. • In the 1km model run, the surface tracers (1 and 2) are subject to less vertical transport compared to runs with parametrized convection, while tracer 3 and 4 reach higher than in the runs with parametrized convection. • Sampling at storm locations highlights the difference between average vertical transport and convective transport.

More Related