Advances in Atmospheric Sciences

, Volume 35, Issue 7, pp 771–784 | Cite as

Evaluation of Unified Model Microphysics in High-resolution NWP Simulations Using Polarimetric Radar Observations

  • Marcus Johnson
  • Youngsun Jung
  • Daniel Dawson
  • Timothy Supinie
  • Ming Xue
  • Jongsook Park
  • Yong-Hee Lee
Open Access
Original Paper

Abstract

The UK Met Office Unified Model (UM) is employed by many weather forecasting agencies around the globe. This model is designed to run across spatial and time scales and known to produce skillful predictions for large-scale weather systems. However, the model has only recently begun running operationally at horizontal grid spacings of ∼1.5 km [e.g., at the UK Met Office and the Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA)]. As its microphysics scheme was originally designed and tuned for large-scale precipitation systems, we investigate the performance of UM microphysics to determine potential inherent biases or weaknesses. Two rainfall cases from the KMA forecasting system are considered in this study: a Changma (quasi-stationary) front, and Typhoon Sanba (2012). The UM output is compared to polarimetric radar observations in terms of simulated polarimetric radar variables. Results show that the UM generally underpredicts median reflectivity in stratiform rain, producing high reflectivity cores and precipitation gaps between them. This is partially due to the diagnostic rain intercept parameter formulation used in the one-moment microphysics scheme. Model drop size is generally both underand overpredicted compared to observations. UM frozen hydrometeors favor generic ice (crystals and snow) rather than graupel, which is reasonable for Changma and typhoon cases. The model performed best with the typhoon case in terms of simulated precipitation coverage.

Key words

Unified Model microphysics polarimetric radar radar simulator numerical weather prediction 

摘 要

全球许多天气预报机构都在使用英国气象局天气与气候统一模式(Met Office Unified Model, 简称MetUM), 它以有效预测大尺度天气系统而闻名, 能够模拟各种时空尺度事件. 然而最近才有预报机构(如: 英国气象局, 韩国气象局)开展该模式在1.5公里水平网格中的业务运行工作. MetUM的微物理方案最早是针对大尺度降水系统设计和调试的, 为评估其在模拟对流性降水过程中固有的潜在偏差或缺点, 本文使用韩国气象局预报系统提供的一次韩国梅雨锋降水和台风“三巴”(2012)降水资料开展数值试验. 通过比较偏振雷达观测资料和MetUM模拟输出的一系列偏振变量值, 发现: MetUM常常低估层状云降水平均反射率, 模拟产生反射率虚假高值中心和破碎的雨带. 这一问题应部分归因于单参数微物理方案中雨粒子截距这一变量采用的诊断公式. 本研究的其他发现有: 模式估计的水滴大小通常都比观测值偏大或偏小; 模式更易模拟出冰晶和雪等常规冰粒子, 较少生成霰粒子, 这对于梅雨锋和台风降水过程模拟是合理的; 从模拟的降水范围看, MetUM在台风个例中效果最好.

摘 要

天气与气候统一模式(MetUM) 微物理方案 偏振雷达 雷达模拟器 数值天气预报 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a research grant of “Development of a Polarimetric Radar Data Simulator for Local Forecasting Model (II)” by the KMA. Further support was provided by a NOAA Warn-on-Forecast grant (Grant No. NA16OAR4320115) and a National Science Foundation grant (Grant No. AGS-1261776). We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their help in improving the quality of this manuscript.

References

  1. Abel, S. J., and I. A. Boutle, 2012: An improved representation of the raindrop size distribution for single-moment microphysics schemes. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 138, 2151–2162, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1949. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballard, S. P., Z. H. Li, D. Simonin, and J.-F. Caron, 2016: Performance of 4D-var NWP-based nowcasting of precipitation at the met office for summer 2012. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 142, 472–487, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2665. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, B. R., M. M. Bell, and A. J. Frambach, 2016: Validation of simulated hurricane drop size distributions using polarimetric radar. Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 910–917, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryan, G. H., and H. Morrison, 2012: Sensitivity of a simulated squall line to horizontal resolution and parameterization of microphysics. Mon. Wea. Rev., 140, 202–225, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00046.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cintineo, R., J. A. Otkin, M. Xue, and F. Y. Kong, 2014: Evaluating the performance of planetary boundary layer and cloud microphysical parameterization schemes in convectionpermitting ensemble forecasts using synthetic GOES-13 satellite observations. Mon. Wea. Rev., 142, 163–182, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00143.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dawson, D. T., M. Xue, J. A. Milbrandt, and M. K. Yau, 2010: Comparison of evaporation and cold pool development between single-moment and multimoment bulk microphysics schemes in idealized simulations of tornadic thunderstorms. Mon. Wea. Rev., 138, 1152–1171, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009MWR2956.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dawson, D. T., L. J. Wicker, E. R. Mansell, Y. Jung, and M. Xue, 2013: Low-level polarimetric radar signatures in EnKF analyses and forecasts of the May 8, 2003 Oklahoma City tornadic supercell: Impact of multimoment microphysics and comparisons with observation. Advances in Meteorology, 2013, 818394, https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/818394. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dawson, D. T., E. R. Mansell, Y. Jung, L. J. Wicker, M. R. Kumjian, and M. Xue, 2014: Low-level ZDR signatures in supercell forward flanks: The role of size sorting and melting of hail. J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 276–299, https://doi.org/10.1175/JASD-13-0118.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Field, P. R., A. J. Heymsfield, and A. Bansemer, 2007: Snow size distribution parameterization for midlatitude and tropical ice clouds. J. Atmos. Sci., 64, 4346–4365, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2344.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Field, P. R., R. J. Hogan, P. R. A. Brown, A. J. Illingworth, T. W. Choularton, and R. J. Cotton, 2005: Parametrization of iceparticle size distributions for mid-latitude stratiform cloud. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 131, 1997–2017, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.04.134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldenberg, S. B., S. G. Gopalakrishnan, V. Tallapragada, T. Quirino, F. Marks Jr., S. Trahan, X. J. Zhang, and R. Atlas, 2015: The 2012 triply nested, high-resolution operational version of the hurricane weather research and forecasting model (HWRF): Track and intensity forecast verifications. Wea. Forecasting, 30, 710–729, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-14-00098.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanley, K. E., R. S. Plant, T. H. M. Stein, R. J. Hogan, J. C. Nicol, H. W. Lean, C. Halliwell, and P. A. Clark, 2015: Mixinglength controls on high-resolution simulations of convective storms. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 141, 272–284, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2356. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hong, S.-Y., and J.-O. J. Lim, 2006: The WRF single-moment 6-class microphysics scheme (WSM6). Korean Meteorological Society, 42, 129–151.Google Scholar
  14. Houze, R. A., Jr., 2010: Clouds in tropical cyclones. Mon. Wea. Rev., 138, 293–344, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009MWR2989.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson, M., Y. Jung, D. T. Dawson II, and M. Xue, 2016: Comparison of simulated polarimetric signatures in idealized supercell storms using two-moment bulk microphysics schemes in WRF. Mon. Wea. Rev., 144, 971–996, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-15-0233.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jung, Y., G. F. Zhang, and M. Xue, 2008: Assimilation of simulated polarimetric radar data for a convective storm using the ensemble Kalman filter. Part I: Observation operators for reflectivity and polarimetric variables. Mon. Wea. Rev., 136, 2228–2245, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007MWR2083.1. Google Scholar
  17. Jung, Y., M. Xue, and G. F. Zhang, 2010: Simulations of polarimetric radar signatures of a supercell storm using a two-moment bulk microphysics scheme. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 49, 146–163, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAMC2178.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jung, Y., M. Xue, and M. J. Tong, 2012: Ensemble Kalman filter analyses of the 29–30 May 2004 Oklahoma tornadic thunderstorm using one-and two-moment bulk microphysics schemes, with verification against polarimetric radar data. Mon. Wea. Rev., 140, 1457–1475, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00032.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim, D.-J., 2015: Center report from KMA-forecasting system operation & research. WGNE-30.Google Scholar
  20. Lin, Y.-L., R. D. Farley, and H. D. Orville, 1983: Bulk parameterization of the snow field in a cloud model. J. Appl. Meteor., 22, 1065–1092, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450 (1983)022<1065:BPOTSF>2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu, C. H., K. Ikeda, G. Thompson, R. Rasmussen, and J. Dudhia, 2011: High-resolution simulations of wintertime precipitation in the Colorado Headwaters region: Sensitivity to physics parameterizations. Mon. Wea. Rev., 139, 3533–3553, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00009.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mansell, E. R., C. L. Ziegler, and E. C. Bruning, 2010: Simulated electrification of a small thunderstorm with two-moment bulk microphysics. J. Atmos. Sci., 67, 171–194, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAS2965.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McMillen, J. D., and W. J. Steenburgh, 2015: Impact of microphysics parameterizations on simulations of the 27 October 2010 Great Salt Lake-effect snowstorm.Wea. Forecasting, 30, 136–152, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-14-00060.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Milbrandt, J. A., and M. K. Yau, 2005: A multimoment bulk microphysics parameterization. Part II: A proposed threemoment closure and scheme description. J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 3065–3081, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3535.1. Google Scholar
  25. Milbrandt, J. A., and M. K. Yau, 2006: A multimoment bulk microphysics parameterization. Part IV: Sensitivity experiments. J. Atmos. Sci., 63, 3137–3159, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3817.1. Google Scholar
  26. Morrison, H., and J. Milbrandt, 2011: Comparison of two-moment bulk microphysics schemes in idealized supercell thunderstorm simulations. Mon. Wea. Rev., 139, 1103–1130, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010MWR3433.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morrison, H., G. Thompson, and V. Tatarskii, 2009: Impact ofcloud microphysics on the development of trailing stratiform precipitation in a simulated squall line: Comparison of oneand two-moment schemes. Mon. Wea. Rev., 137, 991–1007, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008MWR2556.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morrison, H., S. A. Tessendorf, K. Ikeda, and G. Thompson, 2012: Sensitivity of a simulated midlatitude squall line to parameterization of raindrop breakup. Mon. Wea. Rev., 140, 2437–2460, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00283.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morrison, H., J. A. Milbrandt, G. H. Bryan, K. Ikeda, S. A. Tessendorf, and G. Thompson, 2015: Parameterization of cloud microphysics based on the prediction of bulk ice particle properties. Part II: Case study comparisons with observations and other schemes. J. Atmos. Sci., 72, 312–339, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-14-0066.1. Google Scholar
  30. Nicol, J. C., R. J. Hogan, T. H. M. Stein, K. E. Hanley, P. A. Clark, C. E. Halliwell, H. W. Lean, and R. S. Plant, 2015: Convective updraught evaluation in high-resolution NWP simulations using single-Doppler radar measurements. Quart. J. Ror. Meteor. Soc., 141, 3177–3189, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2602. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pan, Y. J., M. Xue, and G. Q. Ge, 2016: Incorporating diagnosed intercept parameters and the graupel category within the ARPS cloud analysis system for the initialization of double-moment microphysics: Testing with a squall line over South China. Mon. Wea. Rev., 144, 371–392, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-15-0008.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Park, H. S., A. V. Ryzhkov, D. S. Zrnic, and K.-E. Kim, 2009: The hydrometeor classification algorithm for the polarimetric WSR-88D: Description and application to an MCS. Wea. Forecasting, 24, 730–748, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008WAF2222205.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Park, J.-S., Y. H. Lee, M. Suk, K. Nam, Y. Jung, and J. Ko, 2015a: Evaluation of UM microphysics using dual-polarised radar simulator. Proceedings of the 37th Conference on Radar Meteorology, Norman, OK, American Meteorological Society.Google Scholar
  34. Park, S., S.-H. Jung, and G. Lee, 2015b: Cross validation of TRMM PR reflectivity profiles using 3D reflectivity composite from the ground-based radar network over the Korean peninsula. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 16, 668–687, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-14-0092.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Potvin, C. K., and M. L. Flora, 2015: Sensitivity of idealized supercell simulations to horizontal grid spacing: Implications for warn-on-forecast. Mon. Wea. Rev., 143, 2998–3024, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00416.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Putnam, B. J., M. Xue, Y. Jung, G. F. Zhang, and F. Y. Kong, 2017: Simulation of polarimetric radar variables from 2013 CAPS spring experiment storm-scale ensemble forecasts and evaluation of microphysics schemes. Mon. Wea. Rev., 145, 49–73, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-15-0415.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rutledge, S. A., and P. V. Hobbs, 1983: The mesoscale and microscale structure and organization of clouds and precipitation in midlatitude cyclones. VIII: A model for the “seeder-feeder” process in warm-frontal rainbands. J. Atmos. Sci., 40, 1185–1206, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469 (1983)040<1185:TMAMSA>2.0.CO;2.Google Scholar
  38. Straka, J. M., M. S. Gilmore, K. M. Kanak, and E. N. Rasmussen, 2005: A comparison of the conservation of number concentration for the continuous collection and vapor diffusion growth equations using one-and two-moment schemes. J. Appl. Meteor., 44, 1844–1849, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAM2314.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tang, Y. M., H. W. Lean, and J. Bornemann, 2013: The benefits of the Met Office variable resolution NWP model for forecasting convection. Meteorological Applications, 20, 417–426, https://doi.org/10.1002/met.1300. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tao, W.-K., and J. Simpson, 1993: Goddard cumulus ensemble model. Part I: Model description. TAO, 4, 35–72, https://doi. org/10.3319/TAO.1993.4.1.35(A).Google Scholar
  41. Thompson, G., P. R. Field, R. M. Rasmussen, and W. D. Hall, 2008: Explicit forecasts of winter precipitation using an improved bulk microphysics scheme. Part II: Implementation of a new snow parameterization. Mon. Wea. Rev., 136, 5095–5115, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008MWR2387.1. Google Scholar
  42. Van Weverberg, K., N. P. M. Van Lipzig, and L. Delobbe, 2011: The impact of size distribution assumptions in a bulk one-moment microphysics scheme on simulated surface precipitation and storm dynamics during a low-topped supercell case in Belgium. Mon. Wea. Rev., 139, 1131–1147, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010MWR3481.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Weverberg, K., A. M. Vogelmann, H. Morrison, and J. A. Milbrandt, 2012: Sensitivity of idealized squall-line simulations to the level of complexity used in two-moment bulk microphysics schemes. Mon. Wea. Rev., 140, 1883–1907, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00120.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Verrelle, A., D. Ricard, and C. Lac, 2015: Sensitivity of highresolution idealized simulations of thunderstorms to horizontal resolution and turbulence parametrization. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 141, 433–448, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2363. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wainwright, C. E., D. T. Dawson II, M. Xue, and G. F. Zhang, 2014: Diagnosing the intercept parameters of the exponential drop size distributions in a single-moment microphysics scheme and impact on supercell storm simulations. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 53, 2072–2090, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-13-0251.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weisman, M. L., W. C. Skamarock, and J. B. Klemp, 1997: The resolution dependence of explicitly modeled convective systems. Mon. Wea. Rev., 125, 527–548, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1997)125<0527:TRDOEM>2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilkinson, J. M., A. N. F. Porson, F. J. Bornemann, M. Weeks, P. R. Field, and A. P. Lock, 2013: Improved microphysical parametrization of drizzle and fog for operational forecasting using the Met Office Unified Model. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 139, 488–500, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1975. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilson, D. R., and S. P. Ballard, 1999: A microphysically based precipitation scheme for the UK meteorological office unified model. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 125, 1607–1636, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712555707. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang, G., J. Vivekanandan, and E. Brandes, 2001: A method for estimating rain rate and drop size distribution from polarimetric radar measurements. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 39, 830–841, https://doi.org/10.1109/36.917906. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang, G. F., M. Xue, Q. Cao, and D. Dawson, 2008: Diagnosing the intercept parameter for exponential raindrop size distribution based on video disdrometer observations: Model development. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 47, 2983–2992, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcus Johnson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Youngsun Jung
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daniel Dawson
    • 3
  • Timothy Supinie
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ming Xue
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jongsook Park
    • 4
  • Yong-Hee Lee
    • 4
  1. 1.Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms (CAPS)University of OklahomaNormanUSA
  2. 2.School of MeteorologyUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA
  3. 3.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  4. 4.Korea Meteorological AdministrationSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations