justin arnott – soo, nws gaylord, mi andrew m olthan – nasa sport
Post on 05-Jan-2016
52 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Seasonal Evaluation of Lake Effect Snow Forecasts from High Resolution WRF Simulations
Sensitivity to Microphysics, Lake Surface Temperatures and Ice Concentration
Justin Arnott – SOO, NWS Gaylord, MI
Andrew Molthan – NASA SPoRT
Jonathan Case – NASA SPoRT
Ongoing NWS/NASA SPoRT Collaboration
Operational Goal: Improve forecasts of Lake Effect Snow
Increase accuracy/detail of band timing/placement
Study Goal: Optimize Local WRF for LES Forecasts
Methods:
1. Seasonal verification of “bulk variables”
2. Case studies of particular events
Symbiotic Resource Exchange:
NASA provides additional computational resources
NWS provides platform to examine SPoRT Products
2010-2011 Results - Summary
Seasonal ComparisonNASA SPoRT vs. NCEP SSTs/Ice Coverage
Seasonal VerificationMaxT/MinT/Liquid Precipitation
vs NWS COOPs
2010-2011 Results - Summary
SPoRT data indicated greater ice coverage, warmer SSTs Local WRF simulations w/SPoRT data showed larger QPF
Precipitation climatology reasonably forecast
Minimum Temperature high bias
Over-prediction of precipitation amounts during intense LES bands
Further studies by NASA SPoRT for 20-21 January 2011 case study suggest Morrison microphysics may provide improved precipitation forecasts
2011-2012 Study Overview
Continue examination of NASA SPoRT SST/Ice vs legacy NCEP data
Update Operational Local WRF run at WFO Gaylord to Morrison Microphysics
Perform sensitivity of legacy WFO Gaylord simulation (2010-2011) with updated simulation for 2011-2012
Examination Period: 12/08/2011-2/26/2012 Only examine days with LES within WFO Gaylord forecast area
26 days included
2011-2012 Study Setup00Z Simulations (all other options identical)
1.Produced by APX NCEP SST/Ice
Morrison Microphysics
2.Produced by NASA SPoRT NASA SPoRT SST/Ice
Morrison Microphysics
Examine 12-36 Hour Forecasts (to match COOP obs time)
12Z Simulations (all other options identical)
1.Produced by APX NCEP SST/Ice
Lin et al. Microphysics
2.Produced by NASA SPoRT NCEP SST/Ice
Morrison Microphysics
Examine 00-24 Hour Forecasts (to match COOP obs time)
Microphysics Sensitivity Runs
SST Sensitivity Runs
APX Local WRF – Basic Setup
Two Nests 12km Outer
4km Inner
Run at 00/12Z Length: 36 hour
IC/BCs: Previous GFS
CP Scheme Outer: Kain-Fritsch
Inner: None
PBL: Yonsei
Operational Availability: T+3hr (~03/15Z)
SST Comparison – Lake Michigan
Average Difference: +0.7oC
SST Comparison – Lake Superior
Average Difference: +0.1oC
Ice Comparison –Average Lake Coverage
Average Difference: -0.3%
MaxT Comparison – Gaylord, MISST Sensitivity – 00Z Simulations
MinT Comparison – Gaylord, MISST Sensitivity – 00Z Simulations
QPF Comparison – Gaylord, MISST Sensitivity – 00Z Simulations
QPF Comparison – Gaylord, MISST Sensitivity – 00Z Simulations
NASA SST – 0.1”POD: 0.33 FAR: 0.67CSI: 0.20
NCEP SST – 0.1”POD: 0.33 FAR: 0.75CSI: 0.17
NASA SST – Total Liquid Precip: 1.58”
NCEP SST – Total Liquid Precip: 1.53”
Gaylord – Total Liquid Precip: 1.08”
3 out of 26 days with 0.1” liquid observed
QPF Comparison – Gaylord, MIMicrophysics Sensitivity – 12Z Simulations
QPF Comparison – Gaylord, MIMicrophysics Sensitivity – 12Z Simulations
Lin et al. – 0.1”POD: 0.00 FAR: 1.00CSI: 0.00
Morrison – 0.1”POD: 0.33 FAR: 0.50CSI: 0.25
Lin et al. – Total Liquid Precip: 1.01”
Morrison – Total Liquid Precip: 0.71”
Gaylord – Total Liquid Precip: 1.08”
3 out of 26 days with 0.1” liquid observed
QPF Comparison – Sault Sainte Marie, MISST Sensitivity – 00Z Simulations
QPF Comparison – Sault Sainte Marie, MISST Sensitivity – 00Z Simulations
NASA SST – 0.1”POD: 0.50 FAR: 0.40CSI: 0.38
NCEP SST – 0.1”POD: 0.50 FAR: 0.40CSI: 0.38
NASA SST – Total Liquid Precip: 1.68”
NCEP SST – Total Liquid Precip: 1.63”
SSM – Total Liquid Precip: 1.38”
6 out of 26 days with 0.1” liquid observed
QPF Comparison – Sault Sainte Marie, MIMicrophysics Sensitivity – 12Z Simulations
QPF Comparison – Sault Sainte Marie, MIMicrophysics Sensitivity – 12Z Simulations
Lin et al. – 0.1”POD: 0.50 FAR: 0.40CSI: 0.33
Morrison – 0.1”POD: 0.67 FAR: 0.33CSI: 0.44
Lin et al. – Total Liquid Precip: 1.70”
Morrison – Total Liquid Precip: 1.08”
SSM – Total Liquid Precip: 1.38”
6 out of 26 days with 0.1” liquid observed
Side by Side Comparison – Example18 Jan 2012Morrison
Lin et al.
Summary
Temperature Climatology reasonably simulatedMax T forecasts more skillful than Min T
Strong warm bias under radiational cooling
Similar performance regardless of SST/Microphysics
SPoRT SST Trends Similar to 2010-2011
SPoRT SST > NCEP
Inconclusive trends on Ice coverage
Summary - Continued
Morrison Microphysics Scheme provides improvement on high QPF bias seen with Lin et al. Higher CSI for 0.1” events at Gaylord and Sault Sainte Marie
Result may be obscured some by “model spin up”
Differences in QPF > Differences in band position between different microphysics schemes
Suggests that switching microphysics scheme provides an overall improvement to “usability” of model data
Little difference in overall performance using differing SST/Ice initialization
Acknowledgements
Rob RozumalskiWRF EMS Developer
NCDC Radar Data ArchiveNAM ArchiveWeather and Climate Toolkit
GrADSPlots
top related