240 likes | 344 Views
A Multiscale Numerical Study of Hurricane Andrew (1992). Part I: Explicit Simulation and Verificantion. Liu, Y., D.-L. Zhang, and M. K. Yau, 1997, Mon. Wea. Rev., 125, 3073-3093. 黃小玲 2004/03/08. Introduction.
E N D
A Multiscale Numerical Study of Hurricane Andrew (1992). Part I: Explicit Simulation and Verificantion Liu, Y., D.-L. Zhang, and M. K. Yau, 1997, Mon. Wea. Rev., 125, 3073-3093 黃小玲2004/03/08
Introduction • The hurricane is a violent atmospheric vortex characterized by strong multiscale interactions. • Previous studies have shown that the tropical synoptic conditions and the sea surface temperature (SST) tend to control the general development of a hurricane(Gray 1979…….) . • Its track and intensity can be affected by its internal dynamics and thermodynamics, the formation and distribution of clouds and precipitation, and the interaction between the hurricane and its larger-scale environment (Holland and Merrill 1984……….) • Observations reveal many interesting phenomena and structures of mature hurricanes.
Overview of Hurricane Andrew • Hurricane Andrew cost a total of $ 25 billion in damages. • The storm originated from a tropical disturbance near the west coast of Africa on 1992/08/14, and deep convection began to organize into a narrow, spiral cloud band an 08/17.
Model integration is initialized at 08/21/1200 UTC (began to intensify) ~ 08/24/1200 UTC(about move out Florida) • Its rapid deepening stage, the mature stage, the maximum intensity stage near Bahamas, and its landfall stage over Florida.
Model description and initial conditions • An improved version of the PSU-NCAR nonhydrostatic, movable, triply nested grid, 3D mesoscale model (MM5). • 23 σ layers, a two-way interaction, movable, triply nested grid. • The Betts-Miller parameterization for shallow convection is applied over mesh C to treat reasonably shallow convective clouds at the outer edge of the hurricane. • The SST is held constant, and use the NCEP data(2o). • The NCEP analysis is always too dry, particularly in the lower troposphere, as compared with the Omega dropwindsondes (ODWs) observation that were taken during Andrew’s development stage.
Model verification C5(>68) parameterized deep convection over the mesh B domain C4(>57) C3(>48) The storm translates at a speed of 6-8 ms-1, the deviation in track less than 100 km at the time of landfall. C2(>41) C1(>33) 922 hPa 919 hPa
08/23/0000 UTC CTL compared with 49 ODWs (released at 400 hPa level).
Miami WSR-57 radar at 08/24/0830 UTC CTL at08/24/0800 UTC
Andrew moves over land:(1) the eye begins to fill,(2) the eyewall expands in size, and(3) the radar reflectivities or the rainfall rates weaken rapidly.
From Powell and Houston(1996) The strong-wind zone near the coastline to the north results from the intensified deep convection, which is in turn attributable to the rapid increase in surface friction and the enhanced low-level convergence of mass and moisture.
08/23/2000 UTC 08/23/2000 UTC Vertical structures 08/24/0800 UTC
08/23/2000 UTC cloud water(0.8-2.0 g kg-1)/ice (0.8-1.2 g kg-1) rain water (4-6 g kg-1) /snow (0.5-0.8 g kg-1) graupel (2-4 g kg-1)
08/23/2000 UTC at the center (eye) 08/23/2000 UTC at the eyewall
Summary and conclusions • The model captures successfully the track, propagation, and rapid deepening of the storm during the 3-day period, as verified against the best track analysis. • The model simulates well the larger-scale environment in which Andrew is embedded. • The model reproduces the visible cloud structures in terms of their size, shape, and intensity, as compared to the satellite and radar imagery. • It is found that Hurricane Andrew is characterized by a shallow layer of intense cyclonic inflows in the PBL and intense outflows above 300 hPa, with much weaker and less organized radial flows in between. • The streamlines in the central core tend to rotate cyclonically outward and converge in the eyewall with the cyclonic inflows from the far distance.