Sensitivity to WRF microphysics/ Cu parametrisation COPS 15th July: Sensitivity to WRF microphysics/ Cu parametrisation Ralph Burton, NCAS (Leeds) Alan Gadian, NCAS (Leeds) This is the footer
15th July: isolated deep convective cloud Note the location and orientation (SW-NEish) of the storm cloud
WRF: COPS domains 6.3 km resolution 2.1 km resolution
WRF: inner domain: 700m resolution
Sensitivity Tests Run # Microphysics Cu Param. Vert. levels Cloud? 1 Ferrier Betts-Miller 81 2 Kain-Fritsch 121 3 4 Thompson 5 ??
WRF: sensitivity tests – CAPE and wind vectors: 15Z Ferrier; Kain-Fritsch This is the footer
WRF: sensitivity tests – CAPE and wind vectors: 15Z Thompson; Kain-Fritsch
WRF: sensitivity tests – CAPE and wind vectors: 15Z Ferrier; Betts-Miller
WRF: skew-t and wind vectors: 15Z Isosurface of cloud water mixing ratio = 1E-4 kg/kg Cloud is quite shallow
WRF: cloud evolution: Ferrier / Betts-Miller 12Z 13Z 14Z 15Z 16Z
Further work / comments Vertical Resolution Lean & Clark (2003) argued that 25m near surface, 50m through BL, 250m in troposphere is needed. Change WRF vertical levels to suit this. Horizontal Resolution Petch (2006) argues you need 200/250m to capture the growth from shallow to deep convection. Change WRF grid resolution to suit this.
Conclusions The Ferrier / Betts-Miller appears to present the “best” combination of microphysics and Cu parametrisation. Cf. “An Experiment Using the High Resolution Eta and WRF Models to Forecast Heavy Precipitation over India”, Pure & Applied Geophysics, Rama Rao et al., Sept. 2007 – same conclusion Area of high(er) CAPE in the region of the cloud location. Zone of convergence at the cloud location. BUT Even in the best case, the GFS surface analysis appears to be too dry. ECMWF analysis? Edit GFS analysis for surface moisture? …?