Drizzle comparisons

24
Ewan O’Connor, Robin Hogan, Anthony Illingworth Drizzle comparisons

description

Drizzle comparisons. Ewan O’Connor, Robin Hogan, Anthony Illingworth. Overview. Do operational forecast models simulate drizzle correctly? Models simulate drizzle through precipitation scheme Treat coalescence drizzle as light rain Observed liquid water content/flux Cloud LWC retrieval - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Drizzle comparisons

Page 1: Drizzle comparisons

Ewan O’Connor, Robin Hogan, Anthony Illingworth

Drizzle comparisons

Page 2: Drizzle comparisons

Overview– Do operational forecast models simulate drizzle correctly?

• Models simulate drizzle through precipitation scheme• Treat coalescence drizzle as light rain

– Observed liquid water content/flux• Cloud LWC retrieval• Drizzle liquid water flux retrieval

– Compare observations and models• Daily basis• Monthly means

– Drizzle drop size• Explicit in Met Office model• Effect of changing drizzle number concentration

Page 3: Drizzle comparisons

Liquid water contentMethod of Albrecht et al. (1990), Boers et al. (2000)

– Use lidar/radar to determine cloud boundaries– Assume linear increase of LWC with height– Scale LWC profile to match LWP from radiometers

LWC

Heig

ht

Cloud base(lidar)

Cloud top (radar)

Modellevels

Page 4: Drizzle comparisons

Liquid water content– LWC not retrieved in rain

Page 5: Drizzle comparisons

Drizzle below cloudDoppler radar and lidar - 4 observables (O’Connor et al. 2005)

• Radar/lidar ratio provides information on particle size

Page 6: Drizzle comparisons

Drizzle below cloudDoppler radar and lidar - 4 observables (O’Connor et al. 2005)

• Radar/lidar ratio provides information on particle size

Retrieve three components of drizzle DSD (N, D, μ).• Can then calculate LWC, LWF and vertical air velocity, w.

Page 7: Drizzle comparisons

Liquid water flux– LWF retrieved below cloud base and in the absence of rain

Page 8: Drizzle comparisons

ECMWF model– Cloud similar to observations

Page 9: Drizzle comparisons

Met Office mesoscale model– Cloud similar to observations

Page 10: Drizzle comparisons

Met Office global model– Has rain at correct time!

Page 11: Drizzle comparisons

Meteo France ARPEGE model– Thin layers - can be one grid box thick

Page 12: Drizzle comparisons

Compare obs/models– Models have similar LWC / LWP– Models overestimate precipitation

Page 13: Drizzle comparisons

Compare daily means– Models have similar LWC / LWP– Models overestimate precipitation

Page 14: Drizzle comparisons

Monthly comparisons

– ECMWF model– Observations

Page 15: Drizzle comparisons

Monthly comparisons

– Met Office mesoscale model– Observations

Page 16: Drizzle comparisons

Monthly comparisons

– Met Office global model– Observations

Page 17: Drizzle comparisons

Monthly comparisons

– Meteo France ARPEGE model– Observations

Page 18: Drizzle comparisons

Drizzle drop size– Met Office model uses explicit size distributions– Treats all precipitation as rain

• Overestimates drop sizes • Underestimates evaporation

Disdrometer

Radar/lidar

Model

Page 19: Drizzle comparisons

Met Office diagnostic precipitation

– Met Office model uses explicit size – Treats all precipitation as rain

Page 20: Drizzle comparisons

Met Office diagnostic precipitation

– Met Office model uses explicit size– Treats all precipitation as rain

Page 21: Drizzle comparisons

Met Office diagnostic precipitation

– Met Office model uses explicit size– Treats all precipitation as rain

Page 22: Drizzle comparisons

Met Office diagnostic precipitation

– Met Office model uses explicit size– Treats all precipitation as rain

Page 23: Drizzle comparisons

Met Office diagnostic precipitation

– Met Office model uses explicit size– Treats all precipitation as rain

Page 24: Drizzle comparisons

Conclusion– Models have reasonable LWC

• Produce far too much drizzle• Precipitation reaches surface• Underestimate evaporation

– Met Office model• Overestimate of drizzle drop size