Advertisement

Object-based precipitation system bias in grey zone simulation: the 2016 South China Sea summer monsoon onset

  • Chun-Yian Su
  • Chien-Ming Wu
  • Wei-Ting Chen
  • Jen-Her Chen
Article

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the precipitation bias in the grey zone simulation (~ 15 km) using the Central Weather Bureau Global Forecast System (CWBGFS). We develop a new evaluation method using the object-based precipitation system (OPS) to examine the bias associated with the degree of convection organization. The 2016 South China Sea (SCS) Summer Monsoon onset is selected to evaluate the model’s performance due to its sharp transition of large-scale circulation, which contributes to the complexity of precipitation pattern. The results based on OPS show that the observed precipitation tends to aggregate toward the central part of SCS during the post-onset period, while the precipitation in the model distributes more sparsely over the ocean. The observed precipitation intensity increases with the size of OPS especially for the extremes; however, the model underrepresents the relationship between the precipitation spectrum and the size of OPS. Moreover, the model simulates earlier diurnal peak time of precipitation over land in the organized systems than observation. The results also suggest that the convection scheme is insensitive to column moisture during the pre-onset period which seems to be one of the key factors to the excessive precipitation in the model. Using high horizontal resolution, however, does not improve the simulation of precipitation much in the model. The current study suggests that the precipitation bias related to aggregation of the convective systems should be regarded as an essential objective of model evaluation and improvement.

Keywords

Object-based precipitation system Precipitation bias Grey zone simulation Degree of convection organization South China Sea summer monsoon onset 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study is jointly supported by the Central Weather Bureau in Taiwan (1052281C, 1062221C), and the Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan (MOST-106-2111-M-002-005, MOST-106-2111-M-002-008, MOST-106-1502-02-11-01). We acknowledge the Central Weather Bureau providing the computational resources for this work. The IMERG V04 data were provided by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center and PPS, which develop and compute the IMERG V04 as a contribution to GPM, and archived at ftp://arthurhou.pps.eosdis.nasa.gov/gpmdata/ YYYY/MM/DD/imerg/ (accessed at 30 March 2017). The NCEP GDAS/FNL0.25 data were provided by the Computational and Information Systems Laboratory at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and archived at https://rda.ucar.edu/ datasets/ds083.3/ (accessed at 29 October 2017).

References

  1. Arakawa A (2004) The cumulus parameterization problem: past, present, and future. J Clim 17(13):2493–2525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arakawa A, Wu CM (2013) A unified representation of deep moist convection in numerical modeling of the atmosphere. Part I. J Atmos Sci 70(7):1977–1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aves S, Johnson RH (2008) The diurnal cycle of convection over the northern South China Sea. J Meteorol Soc Jpn Ser II 86(6):919–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dai A, Trenberth KE (2004) The diurnal cycle and its depiction in the community Climate System Model. J Clim 17(5):930–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Del Genio AD (2012) Representing the sensitivity of convective cloud systems to tropospheric humidity in general circulation models. Surveys Geophys 33(3–4):637–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Derbyshire SH, Beau I, Bechtold P, Grandpeix JY, Piriou JM, Redelsperger JL, Soares PMM (2004) Sensitivity of moist convection to environmental humidity. Quart J R Meteorol Soc 130(604):3055–3079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ek MB, Mitchell KE, Lin Y, Rogers E, Grunmann P, Koren V, … Tarpley JD (2003) Implementation of Noah land surface model advances in the National Centers for Environmental Prediction operational mesoscale Eta model. J Geophys Res: Atmos 108:D22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer EM, Knutti R (2016) Observed heavy precipitation increase confirms theory and early models. Nat Clim Change 6(11):986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flato G, Marotzke J, Abiodun B, Braconnot P, Chou SC, Collins WJ et al (2013) Evaluation of climate models. In: climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Clim Change 2013 5:741–866Google Scholar
  10. Gao J, Xue M, Stensrud DJ (2013) The development of a hybrid EnKF-3DVAR algorithm for storm-scale data assimilation. Adv Meteorol 2013:512656.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/512656 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grabowski WW, Wu X, Moncrieff MW (1996) Cloud-resolving modeling of tropical cloud systems during Phase III of GATE. Part I: Two-dimensional experiments. J Atmos Sci 53(24):3684–3709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gustafson WI, Ma PL, Singh B (2014) Precipitation characteristics of CAM5 physics at mesoscale resolution during MC3E and the impact of convective timescale choice. J Adv Model Earth Syst 6(4):1271–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamada A, Murayama Y, Takayabu YN (2014) Regional characteristics of extreme rainfall extracted from TRMM PR measurements. J Clim 27(21):8151–8169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Han J, Pan HL (2011) Revision of convection and vertical diffusion schemes in the NCEP global forecast system. Weather Forecast 26(4):520–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hortal M, Simmons AJ (1991) Use of reduced Gaussian grids in spectral models. Mon Weather Rev 119(4):1057–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Houze RA Jr (2004) Mesoscale convective systems. Rev Geophys 42:RG4003.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2004RG000150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huffman G, Bolvin D, Braithwaite D, Hsu K, Joyce R, Xie P (2014) Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for GPM (IMERG), version 4.4. NASA’s Precipitation Processing Center, accessed 30 March 2017Google Scholar
  18. Iacono MJ, Delamere JS, Mlawer EJ, Shephard MW, Clough SA, Collins WD (2008) Radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases: calculations with the AER radiative transfer models. J Geophys Res: Atmos 113:D13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeng BF, Chen HJ, Lin SC, Leou TM, Peng MS, Chang SW, … Chang CP (1991) The limited-area forecast systems at the Central Weather Bureau in Taiwan. Weather Forecast 6(1):155–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson RH (2011) Diurnal cycle of monsoon convection. In: The global monsoon system: research and forecast, pp 257–276Google Scholar
  21. Kessler E (1969) On the distribution and continuity of water substance in atmospheric circulations. In: On the distribution and continuity of water substance in atmospheric circulations. American Meteorological Society, Boston, pp 1–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Khairoutdinov MF, Randall DA (2001) A cloud resolving model as a cloud parameterization in the NCAR Community Climate System Model: preliminary results. Geophys Res Lett 28(18):3617–3620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim D, Sobel AH, Maloney ED, Frierson DM, Kang IS (2011) A systematic relationship between intraseasonal variability and mean state bias in AGCM simulations. J Clim 24(21):5506–5520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kopparla P, Fischer EM, Hannay C, Knutti R (2013) Improved simulation of extreme precipitation in a high-resolution atmosphere model. Geophys Res Lett 40(21):5803–5808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li W, Luo C, Wang D, Lei T (2010) Diurnal variations of precipitation over the South China Sea. Meteorol Atmos Phys 109(1–2):33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liou CS, Chen JH, Terng CT, Wang FJ, Fong CT, Rosmond TE, Kuo HC, Shiao CH, Cheng MD (1997) The second–generation global forecast system at the central weather bureau in Taiwan. Weather Forecast 12(3):653–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu YC, Fan J, Zhang GJ, Xu KM, Ghan SJ (2015) Improving representation of convective transport for scale-aware parameterization: 2. Analysis of cloud-resolving model simulations. J Geophys Res: Atmos 120(8):3510–3532Google Scholar
  28. Liu YC, Fan J, Xu KM, Zhang GJ (2018) Analysis of cloud-resolving model simulations for scale dependence of convective momentum transport. J Atmos Sci 75:2445–2472.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-18-0019.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ma HY, Xie S, Boyle JS, Klein SA, Zhang Y (2013) Metrics and diagnostics for precipitation-related processes in climate model short-range hindcasts. J Clim 26(5):1516–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ma HY, Chuang CC, Klein SA, Lo MH, Zhang Y, Xie S, … Phillips TJ (2015) An improved hindcast approach for evaluation and diagnosis of physical processes in global climate models. J Adv Model Earth Syst 7(4):1810–1827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mao J, Wu G (2012) Diurnal variations of summer precipitation over the Asian monsoon region as revealed by TRMM satellite data. Sci China Earth Sci 55(4):554–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mapes BE, Bacmeister JT (2012) Diagnosis of tropical biases and the MJO from patterns in the MERRA analysis tendency fields. J Clim 25(18):6202–6214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moncrieff MW (2004) Analytic representation of the large-scale organization of tropical convection. J Atmos Sci 61(13):1521–1538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moncrieff MW, Klinker E (1997) Organized convective systems in the tropical western pacific as a process in general circulation models: a toga coare case-study. Quart J R Meteorol Soc 123(540):805–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. National Centers for Environmental Prediction/National Weather Service/NOAA/U.S. Department of Commerce (2015) updated daily. NCEP GDAS/FNL 0.25 Degree Global Tropospheric Analyses and Forecast Grids. Research Data Archive at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Computational and Information Systems Laboratory. Accessed 29 October 2017Google Scholar
  36. Palmer TN, Shutts GJ, Swinbank R (1986) Alleviation of a systematic westerly bias in general circulation and numerical weather prediction models through an orographic gravity wave drag parametrization. Quart J R Meteorol Soc 112(474):1001–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Park MS, Ho CH, Kim J, Elsberry RL (2011) Diurnal circulations and their multi-scale interaction leading to rainfall over the South China Sea upstream of the Philippines during intraseasonal monsoon westerly wind bursts. Clim Dyn 37(7–8):1483–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peng MS, Jeng BF, Chang CP (1993) Forecast of typhoon motion in the vicinity of Taiwan during 1989–90 using a dynamical model. Weather Forecast 8(3):309–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ploshay JJ, Lau NC (2010) Simulation of the diurnal cycle in tropical rainfall and circulation during boreal summer with a high-resolution GCM. Mon Weather Rev 138(9):3434–3453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sanderson BM, Shell KM, Ingram W (2010) Climate feedbacks determined using radiative kernels in a multi-thousand member ensemble of AOGCMs. Clim Dyn 35(7–8):1219–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scinocca JF (2003) An accurate spectral nonorographic gravity wave drag parameterization for general circulation models. J Atmos Sci 60(4):667–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stephens GL, L’Ecuyer T, Forbes R, Gettelmen A, Golaz JC, Bodas-Salcedo A, … Haynes J (2010) Dreary state of precipitation in global models. J Geophys Res: Atmos 115:D24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Trivej P, Stevens B (2010) The echo size distribution of precipitating shallow cumuli. J Atmos Sci 67(3):788–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tsai WM, Wu CM (2017) The environment of aggregated deep convection. J Adv Model Earth Syst 9(5):2061–2078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang B, Zhang Y, Lu MM (2004) Definition of South China Sea monsoon onset and commencement of the East Asia summer monsoon. J Clim 17(4):699–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wielicki BA, Welch RM (1986) Cumulus cloud properties derived using Landsat satellite data. J Clim Appl Meteorol 25(3):261–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Willetts PD, Marsham JH, Birch CE, Parker DJ, Webster S, Petch J (2017) Moist convection and its upscale effects in simulations of the Indian monsoon with explicit and parametrized convection. Quart J R Meteorol Soc 143(703):1073–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wu CM, Arakawa A (2014) A unified representation of deep moist convection in numerical modeling of the atmosphere. Part II. J Atmos Sci 71(6):2089–2103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Xu KM, Randall DA (1996) A semiempirical cloudiness parameterization for use in climate models. J Atmos Sci 53(21):3084–3102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Xu KM, Wong T, Wielicki BA, Parker L, Eitzen ZA (2005) Statistical analyses of satellite cloud object data from CERES. Part I: Methodology and preliminary results of the 1998 El Niño/2000 La Niña. J Clim 18(13):2497–2514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Xu KM, Wong T, Dong S, Chen F, Kato S, Taylor PC (2016) Cloud object analysis of CERES aqua observations of tropical and subtropical cloud regimes: four-year climatology. J Clim 29(5):1617–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yang GY, Slingo J (2001) The diurnal cycle in the tropics. Mon Weather Rev 129(4):784–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yun Y, Fan J, Xiao H, Zhang GJ, Ghan SJ, Xu KM, … Gustafson WI (2017) Assessing the resolution adaptability of the Zhang-McFarlane cumulus parameterization with spatial and temporal averaging. J Adv Model Earth Syst 9(7):2753–2770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhang GJ, Fan J, Xu KM (2015) Comments on “A unified representation of deep moist convection in numerical modeling of the atmosphere. Part I”. J Atmos Sci 72(6):2562–2565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhao Q, Carr FH (1997) A prognostic cloud scheme for operational NWP models. Mon Weather Rev 125(8):1931–1953CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Atmospheric SciencesNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan, Republic of China
  2. 2.Central Weather BureauTaipeiTaiwan, Republic of China

Personalised recommendations