Ewan O’Connor Anthony Illingworth Comparison of observed cloud properties at the AMF COPS site with NWP models

Overview Aim: to retrieve continuously the cloud parameters from observations to evaluate climate and forecast models –Combine radar, lidar, model, raingauge and microwave radiometer into single product including instrument error characteristics. –Use common formats based around NetCDF to allow all algorithms to be applied at all sites and compared to all models –Report retrieval errors and data quality flags Generate products –Cloud fraction, IWC, LWC, drizzle, rain, humidity, aerosol Compare forecast models and observations –Cloud fraction, ice/liquid water content statistics

AMF Measurements

Target categorization Combining radar, lidar and model allows the type of cloud (or other target) to be identified Generate products and compare with model variables in each model gridbox

IOP 7b

9 Nov

Skill scores Cloud fraction IWC LWC

Plans Categorisation data –AMF site - almost ready for download from Cloudnet website –Incorporate additional data Profiles of precipitation, humidity –Apply to other supersites Model comparison –Have UM NAE forecasts out to t+36, DWD LME to t+71 Look at forecast degradation Isolate convective from large-scale –Hornisgrinde and AMF are within same global model grid box but 500 m different in height How different are observations? How does model cope!