1. 02/10/021 Simulated radar measurements in NWP-model validation Carl Fortelius Finnish Meteorological Institute

2. 02/10/021 Contents: 1. What are simulated radar measurements 2. Why are they needed 3. What do they tell

3. 02/10/021 Special thanks to: Günther Haase and DWD for the RSM code Harri Hohti for radar data Sami Niemelä for Hirlam output

4. 02/10/021 3D NWP model output: T, q, hydrometeors

5. 02/10/021 Volume backscattering coefficient (Mie) 3D NWP model output: T, q, hydrometeors

6. 02/10/021 Radar ray propagation, extinction Volume backscattering coefficient (Mie) 3D NWP model output: T, q, hydrometeors

7. 02/10/021 Radar ray propagation, extinction Volume backscattering coefficient (Mie) Simulated measurements: PPI, RHI, statistics,... 3D NWP model output: T, q, hydrometeors

8. 02/10/021 Example: Comparing two parameterizations of convection and moist physics in HIRLAM

9. 02/10/021 Example: Comparing two parameterizations of convection and moist physics in HIRLAM Model:HIRLAM 5.0.0 Resolution: 40 levels, 5.5 km Experiments (Sami Niemelä, Univ. Helsinki): HHS: Reference version HHK: ''STRACO'' replaced by ''RKKF'' Boundaries & initial state:FMI operational analyses (31 levels, 22 km)

10. 02/10/021 Example: Comparing two parameterizations of convection and moist physics in HIRLAM Model:HIRLAM 5.0.0 Resolution: 40 levels, 5.5 km Experiments (Sami Niemelä, Univ. Helsinki): HHS: Reference version HHK: ''STRACO'' replaced by ''RKKF'' Boundaries & initial state:FMI operational analyses (31 levels, 22 km) Radars: Gematronik 5.6 GHz, Sigmet signal processing Vantaa, Ikaalinen, Anjalankoski

11. 02/10/021 Analysis 25 May 2001 12 UTC Model domain and composite area

12. 02/10/021

13. 1

14. 1

15. 1

16. 1

17. 1

18. 1

19. 1 Conclusions NWP-models produce realistic(?) reflectivity distributions RSM only (?) way to verify vertically distributed hydrometeors RSM brings out differences between alternative model formulations when traditional methods fail RSM is computationally demanding