Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Studying Hector: meteorology and tracer transport

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Studying Hector: meteorology and tracer transport"— Presentation transcript:

1 Studying Hector: meteorology and tracer transport
Maria Russo1, Charles Chemel2, John Pyle1 NCAS Climate, University of Cambridge NCAS Weather, University of Hertfordshire Manchester, 21 May 2009

2 Overview Hector case study 30 Nov ‘05. In collaboration with Charles Chemel Models: WRF and UKMO-UM at 1km resolution Impact of Hector on UTLS water vapour Effect of resolution and convective parametrisation on the vertical transport of tracers Model: UKMO-UM at 60, 12 and 1km Using passive tracers with 6hr lifetime to study fast transport processes

3 “Quantifying the imprint of a severe Hector Thunderstorm during ACTIVE/SCOUT-O3 onto the Water Content in the UTLS” Chemel et al., Monthly Weather Review, in press 1. Hector case study: 30 Nov ’05 Horizontal resolution: 1km Vertical resolution in UTLS: 100m for WRF and 500m for UM Simulation started: 28 Nov for WRF, 29 Nov for UM Initial and lateral boundary data: ECMWF for WRF, UKMet Office for UM

4 Precipitation rate (mm/hr)
Radar data WRF UM

5 Hygrometeors CPOL Radar data WRF UM

6 The effect of Hector on the water vapour in the UTLS
Water vapour difference between 18:30 and 15:30 LT

7 Conclusions Hector was simulated with WRF and UM and results have been compared to observations Both models get a realistic timing of convection but WRF overestimates precipitation while the UM underestimates it. The top of the storm is similar in the 2 models, but the vertical distribution of hygrometeors is quite different. In both models Hector produces a moistening of the UTLS, although the moistening is larger with the UM than with WRF

8 Effect of resolution and convective parametrisation on the vertical transport of tracers
GLOBAL FORECAST ~60km 12km 1km

9 Experimental setup 0Z 3Z 0Z 3h 45h 28/11/2005 30/11/2005 3 hour spin-up followed by 45 hour run (48h in total) Convection: parametrized for 12, 60km, explicit for 1km Initial conditions are the same for all resolutions LBC for 12 and 1km are derived from the global model run 4 passive tracers with 6h mean lifetime: zero initial concentration + tracer concentration in its source layer is kept fixed throughout the run. TRACER1 TRACER2 TRACER3 TRACER4 Source layer ~0-500m ~2-4km ~4-6km ~14-16km

10 Tracer 1: 45h mean profile 1km 12km 60km Domain Storm ------- Rain
No-rain

11 Tracer 2: 45h mean profile 1km 12km 60km Domain Storm ------- Rain
No-rain

12 Tracer 3: 45h mean profile 1km 12km 60km Domain Storm ------- Rain
No-rain

13 Tracer 4: 45h mean profile 1km 12km 60km Domain Storm ------- Rain
No-rain

14 Effect of tracer lifetime:

15 Conclusions The vertical distribution of tracers (and cloud ice) is very similar in 12 and 60 km model runs. In the 1km model run, the surface tracers (1 and 2) are subject to less vertical transport compared to runs with parametrized convection, while tracer 3 and 4 reach higher than in the runs with parametrized convection. Sampling at storm locations highlights the difference between average vertical transport and convective transport.


Download ppt "Studying Hector: meteorology and tracer transport"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google