1 / 17

Synthetic GOES-R 10.35 µm

Evaluation of and Suggested Improvements to the WSM6 Microphysics in WRF-ARW Using Synthetic and Observed GOES-13 Imagery Lewis Grasso a Daniel T. Lindsey b , Kyo -Sun Lim c , Adam Clark d , Dan Bikos a , and Scott R. Dembek e

chakra
Download Presentation

Synthetic GOES-R 10.35 µm

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. Evaluation of and Suggested Improvements to the WSM6 Microphysics in WRF-ARW Using Synthetic and Observed GOES-13 ImageryLewis Grassoa Daniel T. Lindseyb, Kyo-Sun Limc, Adam Clarkd, Dan Bikosa, and Scott R. Dembeke aCooperativeInstitute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1375 Lewis.Grasso@colostate.edu bNOAACenter for Satellite Applications and ResearchcAtmospheric Sciences and Global Change DivisionPacific Northwest National LaboratorydNational Severe Storms Laboratory eCooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies High Impact Weather Workshop 1-3 April 2014, Norman, Oklahoma

  2. Observed GOES-13 10.7 µm Synthetic GOES-R 10.35 µm Figure 1. (a) NSSL 4-km WRF-ARW synthetic imagery for the 10.35-µm (IR) band from the 0000 UTC 12 May 2010 model run valid at 1200 UTC. (b) GOES-13 10.7-µm (IR) band at 1232 UTC 12 May 2010. The brightness temperature scale (°C) is the same for the synthetic and GOES imagery. This figure is adapted from Bikos et al. (2012). Bikos, D., D. T. Lindsey, J. Otkin, J. Sieglaff, L. Grasso, C. Siewert, J. Correlia Jr., M. Coniglio, R. Rabin, J. S. Kain, and S. Dembek, 2012: Synthetic satellite imagery for real-time high-resolution model evaluation. Wea. Forecasting, 27, 784-795.

  3. Figure 2. Observed (a) and synthetic (b) 10.7 µm satellite imagery valid at 00 UTC on 11 April 2013, and histograms of observed (solid lines) and synthetic (dashed lines) brightness temperatures corresponding to the images over all brightness temperatures c) and zoomed in the denoted box for brightness temperatures between 190 K and 250 K (d). The synthetic image is based on a 24 hour forecast from the NSSL WRF.

  4. Figure 3. Same as Figure 2, except valid at 04 UTC on 2 May 2013. The synthetic image is based on a 28-hour forecast from the NSSL WRF.

  5. Figure 4. Same as Figure 2, except valid at 03 UTC on 16 July 2013. The synthetic image is based on a 27-hour forecast from the NSSL WRF.

  6. Figure 5: Similar to the histograms in Figs 2-4, except for all 9- to 36-hour forecast images from July 2011 to May 2012.

  7. Figure 6: Same as Figure 5, except from June 2012 to September 2012.

  8. Figure 7: Synthetic GOES-R image at 10.35 µm valid 00Z 26 July 2013 for (a) the full domain and (b) zoomed over the white box shown in (a) over Texas, with locations of the horizontal and vertical cross sections indicated.

  9. Figure 8: (a) Vertical cross section taken along the line Y=229, bounded between 495≤X≤535 as indicated in Figure 7b. All five WSM6 microphysical habits are contoured along with the freezing/melting and homogeneous freezing isotherms. (b) Synthetic 10.35 µm brightness temperatures (K) along the line Y=229.

  10. Figure 9: Schematic of sources and sinks for each of the five microphysical habit types and water vapor in the WSM6 microphysical parameterization. The terms with red (blue) colors are activated when the temperature is above (below) 0 °C, whereas the terms with black color are in the entire regime of temperature.

  11. Figure 10: Differences SEN1-CNTL SEN1: psacwand pgacw were reduced 50%. psacw: accretion of cloud water by snow to snow pgacw: accretion of cloud water by graupel to graupel (b) SEN2-CNTL SEN2: psacw, pgacw, and psaut all reduced 50%. psaut: self aggregationof ice to snow (c) SEN3-CNTL SEN3: psacw, pgacw, psaut, psaci, pgaci, and, praci all reduced 50%. psaci: accretion of ice by snow to snow pgaci: accretion of ice by graupel to graupel praci: accretion of ice by rain to snow or graupel

  12. Summary and conclusions • Direct comparisons between observed and synthetic imagery indicate the lack of wsm6 ice. • Histograms over “long” time periods indicate the lack of “cold-cloud” from synthetic Tbs. • Sensitivity test SENS3 indicated a “significant” increase of cloud ice due to the reduction of the conversions of (i) accretion of ice by snow to snow (psaci), (ii)accretion of ice by graupel to graupel (pgaci), and (iii) accretion of ice by rain to snow or graupel (praci). • Bold claim: psaci: accretion of ice by snow to snow dominates over pgaci and praci outside updraft in the anvil (neither rain nor graupel exists there). Thus the reduction in psaci resulted in the significant increase of cloud ice in SEN3.

  13. EPILOG

More Related