High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results
-
Upload
plato-moore -
Category
Documents
-
view
37 -
download
6
description
Transcript of High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results
![Page 1: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas:
MAP results
Evelyne RichardLaboratoire d’AérologieCNRS / Univ. Paul SabatierToulouse, France
![Page 2: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
What are the skills of high-resolution models to forecast orographically influenced precipitation?
Does explicit (versus parameterized) convection lead to a gain in predictability?
IOP 2a – 17 September 1999
A short, intense, isolated, convective event
70 mm within 12 hours
Sensitivity experiments performed with Meso-NH
![Page 3: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
MAP IOP 2a: IR Meteosat
![Page 4: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
MAP target area
![Page 5: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
18:00 UT 19:00 UT 20:00 UT
MAP – IOP 2AComposite radar reflectivity @ z = 2km
25
0 k
m
21:00 UT 22:00 UT 23:00 UT
![Page 6: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Toce Ticino watershed
Observation
Simulation (Δx =2km)
20:00 UT
23:00 UT
Reflectivity @ 2000m
![Page 7: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
ECMWF: OP. ANA 1999ECMWF: OP. ANA 1999
RADAR
12 hour accumulated precipitation
SIMULATION
![Page 8: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
17:00 UT 18:00 UT
19:00 UT 20:00 UT
Composite radar reflectivity @ z = 2km
Z > 60 dBz
25
0 k
m
![Page 9: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Radar Retrieval (S-Pol)
Simulation (Meso-NH)
(x) hail + graupel
(o) hail
graupel
hail
18:00 UT
19:00 UT
20:00 UT
rain rain
12
km
100 km
![Page 10: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Great !
My model is doing a good job
![Page 11: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
ECMWF: OP. ANA ECMWF: OP. ANA 19991999
ARPEGE: OP. ANA. 1999ARPEGE: OP. ANA. 1999 ECMWF: OP. ANA. ECMWF: OP. ANA. 20022002
ECMWF: REANALYSISECMWF: REANALYSIS
MAP - IOP2A:
Intense Convection
Strong sensitivity to initial state
Low predictability
RADAR OBSERVATIONS
![Page 12: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
ANA. OP. 1999ANA. OP. 1999 REANALYSISREANALYSIS
850hPa water vapor mixing ratio : 17 September 1999 12UTC
IOP 2a
REANA (NO MAP REANA (NO MAP DATA)DATA)
![Page 13: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
ECMWF ANALYSIS MAP ECMWF REANALYSIS
Low-level convergence between the Ligurian and Adriatic flows
Increase in the model resolution -> higher mountains -> the Ligurian flow is blocked
Streamlines at 1000 m, 17/09/99 12 UTC
MAP IOP 2aLascaux et al., 2004
![Page 14: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Prectitability ?Still a long way to
go !
![Page 15: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
IOP2b 20/21 September 1999:
Orographic enhancement of a frontal system
200 mm within 30h
Model intercomparison : MC2, MM5, MOLOCH,Meso-NH
How do the models compare with each other ?
![Page 16: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
19 Sept. 1999 12:00 20 Sept. 1999 12:00
METEOSAT infrared
![Page 17: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Sensitivity to the analysis
ECMWF Op. Analysis MAP Reanalysis
Max: 512 mm Max: 482 mm Mean: 78 mm Mean: 87 mm
![Page 18: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
The different models:
• MESO-NH 10 KM + 2.5 KM
• MOLOCH 10 KM + 2 KM
• MM5-RE 27 KM + 9 KM + 3 KM
• MM5-E1 18 KM + 6 KM + 2 KM
• MC2 40 KM + 10 KM +2 KM
Initial and boundary conditions from ECMWF operational analyses
From 19 Sep. 12 UTC to 20 Sep. 18 UTC
(30 hours)
![Page 19: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
MAP - IOP2B - 19-20 Sep. 1999
Intercomparison exercise
4 non-hydrostatic models with horizontal resolution of 2 to 3 km
Initialization based upon ECMWF operational analysis
Accumulated precipitation from the 19th 15 UTC to the 20th 18UTC
Toce-Ticino watershed
![Page 20: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
![Page 21: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Rain gauges
Time evolution of the mean hourly precipitation rate
Radar
![Page 22: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Time evolution of the correlation coeffecient (wrt rain gauges)
![Page 23: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Heidke skill scores as a function of precip. class
1h precip. 27h precip.
![Page 24: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Comparison with rain gauge measurements (121 points)
Correlation 1h
Correlation 6h
Correlation 27h
Mean Bias
MESONH 0.33 0.49 0.62 + 28 % MOLOCH 0.31 0.47 0.62 - 22 % MM5-RE 0.27 0.43 0.55 - 16 % MM5-E1 0.37 0.53 0.63 + 28 %
MC2 0.30 0.47 0.63 - 32 % RADAR 0.48 0.55 0.60 - 54 %
![Page 25: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Toce watershed
1532 km2
Hydrological response
![Page 26: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Grossi et al., 2004
![Page 27: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Grossi et al., 2004
![Page 28: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
How does the flow over complex terrain modify the growth mechanisms of precipitation particles?
Three Doppler radars
Monte Lema – Ronsard – S Pol
• Dual Doppler analysis
• 3D wind fields rerievals
• Microphysical retrievals
Monte Lema
S Pol
Ronsard
![Page 29: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Medina and Houze, 2003Medina and Houze, 2003
U/Nh < 1
U/Nh > 1
dry snow
wet snow
light rain
graupelriming
heavy rain
coalescence
Blocked and stable case
Unblocked and unstable case
![Page 30: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
To what extend the models able to reproduce this contrasted behaviour in the microphysics ?
![Page 31: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
SnowGraupel
Hail
Cloud Rain
Ice
IOP2A
IOP2a ( Strong convection)- Deep system-Large amount of hail and graupel
Mean vertical distribution of the hydrometeors
IOP8 ( Stratiform event)- Shallow system- Large amount of snow
IOP8
Snow
![Page 32: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Dominant microphysical processes:
DEPOSITION on ice(and sublimation)
Growth of graupelby RIMING
AUTOCONVERSIONof pristine ice
MELTING-CONVERSIONof the snow (into graupel)
ACCRETION of cloud dropletsby raindrops
Depletion of graupel by
WET GROWTH of hail
IOP2a IOP8
![Page 33: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Conclusion:
IOP 2A (Predictability)
The use of non-hydrostatic high-resolution models will improve the precipitation forecast but only to some extend.
Further improvement is tied to the improvement of the model initial state
Adding mesoscale data in a global assimilation system is insufficient
•Mesoscale data assimilation system
•Limited area ensemble forecast
(MAP D-PHASE)
![Page 34: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
IOP 2b (Model Intercomparison)
– Very good consistency of the accumulated precipitation pattern
– Model results over/under estimate the total precipitation by a factor ranging from +30% to -30%
– The accuracy of the model precipitation is rather weak for the hourly rainfall but fairly reasonable for the precipitation accumulated over the 30h time period of the event
– However model results are not yet accurate enough to be used for hydrological forecast on small watersheds
![Page 35: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Explicit microphysical schemes do provide fairly realistic results …
The contrasted microphysical behaviour between different IOPs is reasonably reproduced
• Convective – flow over ----> Strong riming and coalescence
• Stratiform – blocked flow ----> Melting of snow
![Page 36: High-resolution modelling in mountainous areas: MAP results](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062422/56813217550346895d987346/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
http://www.aero.obs-mip.fr/map/MAP_wgnum
(1) LA CNRS/UPS, Toulouse, France
(2) CNRM, Météo-France, Toulouse, France(3) RPN, Montréal, Canada
(4) ISAC, CNR, Bologna, Italy(5) University of L ’Aquila, Italy(6) University of Milano, Italy
(7) University of Munich, Germany(8) University of Brescia, Italy
(9) University of Waterloo, Canada
N. Asencio (2), R. Benoit (3), A. Buzzi (4), R. Ferretti (5), F. Lascaux (1), P. Malguzzi (4), S. Serafin (6), G. Zängl (7), J-F. Georgis (1), R. Ranzi (8), G. Grossi (8), N. Kouwen (9)