1 / 10

Sabine Göke, David M. Plummer

Analysis of microphysical data in an orographic environment to evaluate a polarization radar-based hydrometeor classification scheme. Sabine Göke, David M. Plummer Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL Scott M. Ellis, and Jothiram Vivekanandan

elda
Download Presentation

Sabine Göke, David M. Plummer

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. Analysis of microphysical data in an orographic environment to evaluate a polarization radar-based hydrometeor classification scheme Sabine Göke, David M. Plummer Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL Scott M. Ellis, and Jothiram Vivekanandan National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 4th ERAD Conference, Barcelona, Spain, 18 - 22 Sept. 2006

  2. Conceptual Model Orographic precipitation mechanisms (“wet” MAP and IMPROVE II) Medina and Houze, QJRMS 2003 Houze and Medina, JAS 2005

  3. Irreg. crystals Dry snow Wet snow Graupel Rain Ground clutter Vivekanandan et al., BAMS 1999 Hydrometeor Identification Alps Reflectivity

  4. (Straka et al., JAM 2000) (Hobbs, 1974) 1 mm Riming versus Aggregation Supercooled droplets

  5. Time T -DT Shortest distance Matching Time T Position: lat, lon, altitude Wind: u, v, w Repeat within [T –DT, T + DT] Horizontal distance: 1 km Vertical Distance: 250 m DT = 90 sec, 150 sec

  6. Comparison (Aggregates)

  7. Comparison (Rimed particles)

  8. Future Steps • Finishing cataloging all matched data. • Fine tuning the algorithm for orographic environment (in collaboration with Scott Ellis and Vivek). • Determining the uncertainty of the hydrometeor classification algorithm output. • Using more than one radar volume to classify hydrometeor types. • Testing the conceptual model as proposed by Houze (in collaboration with Bob Houze and his research group).

More Related