© Crown copyright Page 1

A comparison of CRM simulations of trade wind cumulus with aircraft observations

taken during RICO

Steve Abel and Ben Shipway21st Sept 2006

GCSS Workshop, New York

© Crown copyright Page 2

Overview

Compare the properties of updraft cores in the LEM with aircraft data.

• This has involved running a number of idealized experiments using the Met Office Large Eddy Model (LEM) to simulate a range of congestus scenarios.

• Work is under way at the Met Office to incorporate a third mode into the Unified Model (NWP and Climate) - warm rain cumulus (congestus)

• Observations from RICO allow us to test how well the LEM simulations were doing.

Find that there are deficiencies in the original set up in the LEM – the model cannot reproduce the observed amounts of cloud and rain water contents.

Test the LEM response to changes in the model variables.

Can we make the LEM perform better?

• Currently most convection schemes distinguish between only two physical modes of cumulus convection – shallow and deep.

Abel and Shipway, submitted to QJ

© Crown copyright Page 3

Environmental Profiles (19th Jan 2005)

Black line shows the mean of observations made on the 19th January 2005. Included are twelve dropsondes from the C-130 aircraft (12:18:58 – 19:40:01 UTC) and three radiosondes released from Barbuda (04:56:27 – 18:08:03 UTC).

Grey area shows the approximate range of the S-Pol radar. Filled circles show the launch location of the C-130 dropsondes. Open circle on south-east tip of Barbuda is the radiosonde launch site.

© Crown copyright Page 4

Radar Imagery (19th January 2005)

S-Pol radar quick look images for selected times on the 19/01/2005. The images are centred on the island of Barbuda where the S-Pol radar was based.

• Towering Cu in SPol radar domain for much of the day with extensive rain shafts. Later on these organised lines moved to SW and were replaced with a shallower field of trade wind Cu with less precipitation.

• Observations used to initiate the LEM taken from ~ 5:00 – 20:00 UTC

• Whilst the idealised LEM simulations are not designed to replicate the observed variability, the fairly heavy precipitation on this day will be a good test of the warm rain process in the model.

© Crown copyright Page 5

Model forcing

The model forcing (large scale subsidence plus temperature and moisture tendencies) was set up to induce quasi-equilibrium simulations with a profile similar to the observations following the methodology of Grant and Lock (2004), QJ.

© Crown copyright Page 6

Environmental Profiles

Black line shows the mean of observations made on the 19th January 2005. Included are twelve dropsondes from the C-130 aircraft (12:18:58 – 19:40:01 UTC) and three radiosondes released from Barbuda (04:56:27 – 18:08:03 UTC). The red line is the equilibrium profile of the LEM.

• Fairly moist layer below the trade wind inversion at 650 – 600 hPa (~ 4 km altitude) and above the sub-cloud boundary layer at ~ 950 hPa.

• Above this the air is much drier and stable, indicative of high level subsidence.

• Trade wind layer is slightly moister and the inversion stronger in the LEM than in the observations.

• Horizontal wind also based on measured profiles.

© Crown copyright Page 7

Model setup: Domain size

• 40 x 40 km (25.6 x 25.6 km) domain. Model top at 10 km.

• 250 m (100 m) horizontal resolution.• High resolution run more similar to 1 Hz aircraft data (air speed ~ 100 ms-1)

• 100 layers on a stretched grid in the vertical.• 40 m in the boundary layer• increasing to 100 m in the mid-troposphere up to 7 km• further degraded to 200 m towards top of domain

© Crown copyright Page 8

Time Series

Statistics taken from 18 hours onwards

• Cloud top ~ 3.5 – 4 km• Cloud base ~ 350 – 400 m

• Discrete peaks in rain rate indicate that only a few convective events are responsible for the majority of rainfall across domain at any one time

© Crown copyright Page 9

Typical Cloud Field Simulated by LEM

Visualization of 3D fields

© Crown copyright Page 10

View from above

Barbuda

GOES-12 ch1 image at 13:45 UTC on 19/01/05

• Similar features are evident in the satellite imagery and the LEM simulations.

40 km

~ 100 km

© Crown copyright Page 11

Test sensitivity of LEM to changes in the model variables

• Rain microphysics formulation1) Single moment (1-M) vs Double moment (2-M) scheme

Single moment rain

Rain mixing ratio prognosed

Rain droplet size distribution cannot be

accurately represented

Errors in sedimentation (size separation) and

accumulation processes

Poor representation of the warm rain processes

Double moment rain

Rain mixing ratio and number concentration

prognosed

Rain droplet size distribution more accurately represented

Sedimentation (size separation) and

accumulation processes more realistic

Better representation of the warm rain processes

© Crown copyright Page 12

Test sensitivity of LEM to changes in the model variables

2) Rain Droplet fall speed

Approximations to the droplet fall speed. Black line comes from theoretical results of Beard (1976).

• Fall flux of rain determined by mass weighted terminal velocity integrated over all droplet sizes.

• The rain droplet fall speed is constrained to take the form of a modified gamma distribution.

• However, the default fall speed (red line) can be improved upon.

• We test out 2 other approximations for the fall speed (Smith – blue line & Uplinger – cyan line)

( ) r rb f Dr rV D a D e

© Crown copyright Page 13

Test sensitivity of LEM to changes in the model variables

3) Auto-conversion• The auto-conversion of cloud droplets to rain droplets is dependent upon the mixing ratio of cloud LWC, and the number concentration of cloud droplets, nl (i.e. dependent on mean drop diameter).

• nl is set to a constant 2.4x108 m-3 by default - RICO observations suggest a value of 5x107 m-3 may be more appropriate. c.f. 4.5x107 m-3 for RICO GCSS case

• Reducing this value should enable cloud water to be more readily converted to rain.

• Forcing strengthDouble the forcing in the model

• Model ResolutionIncrease the horizontal resolution

© Crown copyright Page 14

Simulation features: Area averaged properties

* Radar data courtesy of Louise Nuijens and Bjorn Stevens

*

© Crown copyright Page 15

Comparing LEM simulations with aircraft observations

Observations of the atmospheric profile used to initialize LEM

Compare the properties of cloud updraft cores simulated by the LEM with the in situ aircraft measurements

In situ aircraft measurements of cloud updraft cores

Change LEM microphysics,resolution, forcing etc

Generate simulated flight paths

© Crown copyright Page 16

Definition of a cloud updraft core

Updraft Core Penetration

• Vertical velocity ≥ 1ms-1 and cloud LWC ≥ 0.05 gm-3 for at least 500 m along the flight track.

1 ms-1

0.05 gm-3

Similar definition to previous aircraft studies of updrafts in stronger convective systems over the Tropical Pacific and Amazon regions (Anderson et al. 2005)

© Crown copyright Page 17

Mean profiles of updraft properties

© Crown copyright Page 18

1-M versus 2-M

• Better representation of rain droplet size distribution in 2-M scheme leads to a

• decrease in cloud LWC• increase in rain LWC• decrease in number of updrafts

© Crown copyright Page 19

Sensitivity to rain fall speed

• Vertical distribution of rain LWC sensitive to droplet fall speed

• Smith – Large droplets (2-4 mm) fall out too quickly low rain LWC, Reduced collection efficiency high cloud LWC

• Uplinger – more realistic representation of fall speed c.f. Smith or default

© Crown copyright Page 20

Sensitivity to cloud droplet number conc.

• Reducing nl in the auto-conversion scheme allows cloud water to be converted to rain more easily

• Better agreement with observations in both cloud and rain LWC profiles

© Crown copyright Page 21

Sensitivity to equilibrium forcing

• Doubling forcing leads to

• ~ x 2 number updrafts• little change to mean profiles• larger surface rain rate due to more convective cells

• Consistent with previous studies of deep convection e.g Schutts and Gray (1999), QJ

© Crown copyright Page 22

Sensitivity to horizontal resolution

• Horizontal res 250 100 m

• Decrease in updraft size

• Increase in vertical velocity below 1.5 km

• Shifts peak in rain LWC to higher up in cloud layer (large rain drops transported higher in updrafts)

© Crown copyright Page 23

Sampling Biases

• Aircraft tends to sample larger updrafts

• Result of aircraft aiming for larger visible clouds or that the LEM in not simulating the distribution of cloud size correctly. Further comparisons with satellite data would be required

• Correlation between updraft size and both vertical velocity and rain LWC

• No significant change in cloud LWC with updraft size

© Crown copyright Page 24

Summary

• Lowering the concentration of cloud droplets required to initiate the auto-conversion scheme brings the model into better agreement with the observations of both cloud and rain water contents.

• Default set-up of the LEM was not able to replicate the observed profiles of cloud and rain LWC in updrafts.

• Increasing the forcing results in a greater number of updrafts in the model albeit with similar properties.

• Vertical distribution of cloud and rain LWC is sensitive to droplet fall velocity.

• High resolution run has a peak in rain LWC higher in updraft due to increased vertical velocity < 1.5 km

• LEM is also able to produce surface rain rates that are in accordance with radar observations.

© Crown copyright Page 25

Questions & Answers