the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Influence of cloud microphysics schemes on weather model predictions of heavy precipitation
Gregor Köcher
Tobias Zinner
Christoph Knote
Abstract. Cloud microphysics is one of the major sources of uncertainty in numerical weather prediction models. In this work, the ability of a numerical weather prediction model to correctly predict high-impact weather events, i.e., hail and heavy rain, using different cloud microphysics schemes is evaluated statistically. Polarimetric C-band radar observations over 30 convection days are used as observation dataset. Simulations are made using the regional-scale Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) with five microphysical schemes of varying complexity (double moment, spectral bin (SBM), and particle property prediction (P3)). Statistical characteristics of heavy rain and hail events of varying intensities are compared between simulations and observations. All simulations, regardless of the microphysical scheme, predict heavy rain events that cover larger average areas than those observed by radar. The frequency of these heavy rain events is similar to radar-measured heavy rain events, but still scatters by a factor of 2 around the observations, depending on the microphysical scheme. The model is generally unable to simulate extreme hail events with reflectivity thresholds of 55 dBZ and higher, although they have been observed by radar during the evaluation period. For slightly weaker hail/graupel events, only the P3 model is able to reproduce the observed statistics. Analysis of the raindrop size distribution in combination with the model mixing ratio shows that the P3, Thompson 2-mom, and Thompson aerosol-aware models produce large raindrops too frequently, and the SBM model misses large rain and graupel particles.
Gregor Köcher et al.
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on acp-2022-835', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Jan 2023
This is an interesting study giving a statistical evaluation of different microphysical schemes using real radar observations on 30 convective cases.
The first part of the results dedicated to the analysis of heavy rain is very convincing. The two ways of sorting the results as a function of reflectivity first and of rain content next is nice and helps showing the effect of the understimation or overestimation (depending on the scheme) of the number of large drops in the PSD.
Regarding the part with hail and graupel statistics, I don’t always agree with the interpretation of the results.
l 317: “large graupel and hail produce similar radar signals”
It is true only if graupel and hail are modeled with the same characteristics (PSD and density for Zh). Depending of the density options for graupel in the microphysics scheme you are evaluating, you could underestimate the maximum possible reflectivities that would be reached if explicit with hail (which is denser than graupel) was modeled in your schemes.
l 327: “Since none of the simulations, regardless of the cloud microphyics scheme, were able to reproduce these extreme events, we do not believe that this is related to the microphysics scheme, but rather a consequence of the model grid resolution.”
The resolution very probably plays a role but again, you can’t simulate the extreme reflectivities due to hail (in your observation) while you don’t explicitly have hail in your model (and the corresponding options in the forward operator).
L 363: “The SBM scheme, on the other hand, is again likely missing the larger particles, since a large mass of graupel particles is generated, but this does not translate into high reflectivities”
Again, could this be also due to a different graupel density in this scheme compared to others ?
More information about the differences in the density of graupel / rimed fraction between the different schemes (and compared to typical hail density) should be included in the paper, either to evaluate if this could have an effect or not.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2022-835-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gregor Köcher, 15 Mar 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-835/acp-2022-835-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gregor Köcher, 15 Mar 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on acp-2022-835', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Feb 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-835/acp-2022-835-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Gregor Köcher, 15 Mar 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-835/acp-2022-835-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Gregor Köcher, 15 Mar 2023
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on acp-2022-835', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Jan 2023
This is an interesting study giving a statistical evaluation of different microphysical schemes using real radar observations on 30 convective cases.
The first part of the results dedicated to the analysis of heavy rain is very convincing. The two ways of sorting the results as a function of reflectivity first and of rain content next is nice and helps showing the effect of the understimation or overestimation (depending on the scheme) of the number of large drops in the PSD.
Regarding the part with hail and graupel statistics, I don’t always agree with the interpretation of the results.
l 317: “large graupel and hail produce similar radar signals”
It is true only if graupel and hail are modeled with the same characteristics (PSD and density for Zh). Depending of the density options for graupel in the microphysics scheme you are evaluating, you could underestimate the maximum possible reflectivities that would be reached if explicit with hail (which is denser than graupel) was modeled in your schemes.
l 327: “Since none of the simulations, regardless of the cloud microphyics scheme, were able to reproduce these extreme events, we do not believe that this is related to the microphysics scheme, but rather a consequence of the model grid resolution.”
The resolution very probably plays a role but again, you can’t simulate the extreme reflectivities due to hail (in your observation) while you don’t explicitly have hail in your model (and the corresponding options in the forward operator).
L 363: “The SBM scheme, on the other hand, is again likely missing the larger particles, since a large mass of graupel particles is generated, but this does not translate into high reflectivities”
Again, could this be also due to a different graupel density in this scheme compared to others ?
More information about the differences in the density of graupel / rimed fraction between the different schemes (and compared to typical hail density) should be included in the paper, either to evaluate if this could have an effect or not.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2022-835-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gregor Köcher, 15 Mar 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-835/acp-2022-835-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gregor Köcher, 15 Mar 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on acp-2022-835', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Feb 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-835/acp-2022-835-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Gregor Köcher, 15 Mar 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-835/acp-2022-835-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Gregor Köcher, 15 Mar 2023
Gregor Köcher et al.
Model code and software
Software repository Gregor Köcher https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7428844
Gregor Köcher et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
309 | 123 | 11 | 443 | 6 | 5 |
- HTML: 309
- PDF: 123
- XML: 11
- Total: 443
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1