INSTYTUT METEOROLOGII I GOSPODARKI WODNEJ

1. INSTYTUT METEOROLOGII I GOSPODARKI WODNEJ INSTITUTE OF METEOROLOGY AND WATER MANAGEMENT TITLE :Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM AUTHORS:Grzegorz Duniec, Andrzej Mazur DATE:05.09.2011

2. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM Why? Estimation of the influence of TILE and/or MOSAIC parameterisation on model results for different parameterisation of physics and numerics

3. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM Numerical schemes Setup chosen for tests • Leapfrog: 3 – timelevel HE-VI Integration • Leapfrog: 3 – timelevel semi – implicit • Runge–Kutta: 2 – timelevel HE – VI Integration with irunge kutta=1 • Runge–Kutta: 2 – timelevel HE – VI Integration with irunge kutta=2 Convection schemes • Kain–Fritsch (1992) • Tiedtke (1989) (shallow, deep) Abbreviations – numerical schemes • HEVI - leapdef - Leapfrog: 3 – timelevel HE-VI Integration • LFSI - leapsemi - Leapfrog: 3 – timelevel semi – implicit • RKN1 - rungekutta1 - Runge–Kutta: 2 – timelevel HE – VI Integration, irunge kutta=1 • RKN2 - rungekutta2 - Runge–Kutta: 2 – timelevel HE – VI Integration, irunge kutta=2 Abbreviations – convection schemes • KAFR – Kain–Fritsch’s convection scheme • SHAL – shallow convection • TIED – Tiedtke’s convection scheme Abbreviations – SUBS • NSUB – v. 4.08, 4.14 – control (reference) runs*) • NSUB – MOSAIC, TILE – nsubs=1, itype_subs (1 or 2, respct.)*) • SUB1 – TILE with itype_subs=2, snow/no snow distinction • SUB2 – TILE with itype_subs=2 lake/no lake distinction *) ”Sanity” checks

4. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM Resulting fields • TE2M – air temperature at 2m above groud level • TD2M – dew point temperature at 2m agl. • TSOI – soil temperature at 0 cm • U10m – zonal wind component, 10m agl. • V10m – meridional wind component, 10m agl. • QV2M- specific water vapour content, 2m agl. • QVSF – specific water vapour content at surface

5. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM Date selected and why ? • Nine different synoptic situations selected for extensive tests • 2009 II 01 (00UTC) – low temperature, the ground was frozen solid • 2009 IV 22 (12 UTC) – sunny/fair day • 2009 VII 22 (00 UTC) – sunny/fair day • 2009 X 16 (00 UTC) – ground snow-covered • 2009 XI 04 (12 UTC) – windy day with precipitation • 2009 XI 21 (06 UTC) – foggy day • 2010 I 10 (00 UTC) – ground snow-covered • 2010 II 25 (00 UTC) – low temperature, the ground was frozen solid • 2010 XI 18 (00 UTC) – data from FLAKE available

6. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM Synoptic sytuation – 01 II 2009 low temperature, the ground was frozen solid

7. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM Synoptic sytuation – 22 IV 2009 sunny/fair day

8. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM Synoptic sytuation – 22 VII 2009 sunny/fair day

9. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM Synoptic sytuation – 16 X 2009 ground snow-covered

10. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM Synoptic sytuation – 04 XI 2009 windy day with precipitation

11. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM Synoptic sytuation – 21 XI 2009 foggy day

12. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM Synoptic sytuation – 10 I 2010 ground snow-covered

13. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM Synoptic sytuation – 25 II 2010 low temperature, the ground was frozen solid

14. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM Synoptic sytuation – 18 XI 2010 data from FLAKE available

15. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM Methodology Comparison (for all combinations of convection and numerical schemes): • v. 4.08 vs. v. 4.14 • v. 4. 08 vs. MOSAIC • v. 4. 08 vs. TILE (NSUB, SUB1, SUB2) • v. 4. 14 vs. TILE (NSUB, SUB1, SUB2) • MOSAIC vs. TILE (NSUB, SUB1, SUB2) • TILE (NSUB vs. SUB1, NSUB vs. SUB2, SUB1 vs. SUB2) Statistics (for all combinations of convectionand numerical schemes): • correlation • standard deviation • covariance • variance

16. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM The ”best” results– 18 XI 2010 The ”best” results (concerning correlation coefficient) was gained for example for combinations ”4. 08 vs. MOSAIC”– for all meteorological fields.

17. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM The ”worst” results– 18 XI 2010 The ”worst” results (concerning correlation coefficient) was gained for example for combinations ”4.14-TILE-SUB1” for selected output fields

18. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM Bad, but not the ”worst” results – 18 XI 2010 Specific water vapour content at surface (kg/kg) Air temperature at 2 m (K) Differences of v. 4.14 vs. TILE-SUB1 Tiedtke’s convection scheme Leapfrog (LF-SI) numerical scheme Differences of v. 4.14 vs. TILE-SUB1 Tiedtke’s convection scheme Leapfrog (HE-VI) numerical scheme Correlation coeff.: 0.9457 Correlation coeff.: 0.97252

19. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM The ”worst” results – 18 XI 2010 Soil temperature at 0 cm (K) Differences of v. 4.14 vs. TILE-SUB1 Shallow convection scheme Leapfrog (LF-SI) numerical scheme Differences of v. 4.14 vs. TILE-SUB1 Kain–Fritsch’s convection scheme Leapfrog (HE-VI) numerical scheme Correlation coeff.: 0.9278 Correlation coeff.: 0.9302

20. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM The ”worst” results – 18 XI 2010 Soil temperature at 0 cm (K) TILE, NSUB (reference run) Kain–Fritsch’s convection scheme Leapfrog (HE-VI) numerical scheme V. 4.14, NSUB (reference run) Kain–Fritsch’s convection scheme Leapfrog (HE-VI) numerical scheme

21. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM The ”worst” results – 18 XI 2010 Soil temperature at 0 cm (K) TILE, SUB2 Kain–Fritsch’s convection scheme Leapfrog (HE-VI) numerical scheme TILE, SUB1 Kain–Fritsch’s convection scheme Leapfrog (HE-VI) numerical scheme

22. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM Plans • To check influence TILE and MOSAIC parameterisation on: • moisture flux, • - heat flux, • microstructure of Stratus and Stratocumulus clouds (e.g. liquid water content or ice content), • cloud coverage by Stratus or Stratocumulus, • cloud coverage by middle and high clouds, • precipitation efficiency, • height base of Stratus and Stratocumulus types clouds, • microstructure of fogs, • - boundary layer structure.

23. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AUTHORS: Grzegorz Duniec 01-673 Warszawa, ul.: Podleśna 61 phone: +48 (22) 56 94 130 grzegorz.duniec@imgw.pl Andrzej Mazur 01-673 Warszawa, ul.: Podleśna 61 phone: +48 (22) 56 94 134 andrzej.mazur@imgw.pl