1. How radiative processes can influence tropical cyclones Robert Fovell and Yizhe Peggy Bu University of California, Los Angeles rfovell@ucla.edu 1 Thanks to: Greg Thompson, NCAR/DTC; Ligia Bernardet and Mrinal Biswas, DTC; Brad Ferrier, NCEP; Hui Su and Longtao Wu, JPL; Kristen Corbosiero, U at Albany 14 th WRF Workshop 24 June 2013

2. Theme Focus is on cloud-radiative forcing (CRF) CRF… Is not clear-sky or “background” radiative forcing Is modulation of clear-sky forcing by hydrometeors CRF consists of… Longwave (LW) cooling at cloud tops, at all times Shortwave (SW) warming at cloud tops, during day LW warming within clouds CRF depends on microphysics parameterizations (MP) Interaction with radiation is particle size-dependent, thus species- dependent MPs should share size information to the radiation scheme… and one of them finally does (thanks to Greg Thompson) 2

3. Background & motivation 3

4. Semi-idealized experiment 4 Real-data WRF-ARW @ 3 or 4 km for 72 h Uniform SST Single sounding No initial flow NO LAND 7 MPs One initial condition very small part of domain shown Fovell et al. (2009) Fovell et al. (2010)

5. Semi-idealized experiment 5 MPs yielded different… …amounts of various hydrometeors …diabatic heating patterns …symmetric wind structures …asymmetry patterns …motions …intensities very small part of domain shown Fovell et al. (2009) Fovell et al. (2010)

6. Influence of CRF 6 CRF-on CRF-off Fovell et al. (2010)

7. Troposphere-averaged vertical velocity 7 150 km CRF caused storms to be wider, less asymmetric, weaker Fovell et al. (2010) with ARW, curved Earth CRF-on CRF-off

8. Semi-idealized HWRF experiments Single sounding, uniform SST, no initial flow, no land 8

9. HWRF experimental design HWRF rev. 6557 (28 March 2013) Greg Thompson’s microphysics scheme RRTMG radiation package 2012 operational configuration (3 telescoping domains) Thompson/RRTMG CRF-on vs. CRF-off Operational HWRF* is Ferrier + GFDL Focus on structure 9 connected no land * For 2013 and earlier seasons

10. HWRF simulation strategy for semi-idealized experiments 10 Vortex-following 1 full diurnal cycle HWRF model physics called every time step

11. HWRF results when “clouds are cloudy” Control run: Thompson/RRTMG with CRF-on Averaged over 1 diurnal cycle 11

12. Lower troposphere vertical velocity (sfc-500 mb) Thompson/RRTMG 400 km Expected structural asymmetry owing to beta shear 200 km 100 km Houze (2010) 12

13. Thompson/RRTMG structure 13 Radial (shaded) and tangential velocity (m/s) Temporally and azimuthally averaged 354 km 18 km

14. Thompson/RRTMG structure 14 Condensation (shaded) and net radiative forcing (K/h)

15. Thompson/RRTMG structure 15 C W net cooling ~ 7 K/day net warming ~ 1 K/day Condensation (shaded) and net radiative forcing (K/h) Net radiation = LW + SW and includes background (clear-sky) forcing Radiation contour interval differs for positive and negative values

16. LW only SW only C W W 16

17. Clear-sky radiative forcing (unperturbed by convection) 17 LW SW Averaged over annulus of 350 km radius and one diurnal cycle

18. Clear-sky radiative forcing (after TC development; clouds still transparent) 18 LW SW LW SW Averaged over annulus of 350 km radius and one diurnal cycle From a CRF-off simulation

19. Total radiative forcing (after including CRF) 19 LW SW LW SW LW SW Averaged over annulus of 350 km radius and one diurnal cycle

20. CRF-on vs. CRF-off 20 SW CRF-on CRF-off Averaged over 350 km radius

21. “A difference is a difference only if it makes a difference.” – Darrell Huff, How to Lie With Statistics 21

22. Lower troposphere vertical velocity (sfc-500 mb) Thompson/RRTMG CRF-onCRF-off 400 km 200 km 100 km icloud = 0 in namelist.input 22

23. 34-kt wind radii Note 34-kt wind radius > 70% larger with CRF-on 23

24. Radial velocity (colored) & Tangential velocity (contoured, m/s) Thompson/RRTMG CRF-on Thompson/RRTMG CRF-off 354 km 20 m/s tangential wind contour highlighted 24

25. Radial velocity (colored) & Tangential velocity (contoured, m/s) Thompson/RRTMG CRF-on Thompson/RRTMG CRF-off Difference field CRF-on storm: wider eye, stronger outflow, broader wind field 25

26. Total condensate (colored) & Net radiative forcing (contoured, K/h) Thompson/RRTMG CRF-on Thompson/RRTMG CRF-off has clear-sky forcing only C W 354 km Net radiation = LW + SW and includes background (clear-sky) forcing Radiation contour interval differs for positive and negative values W 26

27. Total condensate (colored) & Net radiative forcing (contoured, K/h) Thompson/RRTMG CRF-on Thompson/RRTMG CRF-off Difference field C W CRF-on storm: wider, thicker anvil W Eye size difference C 27

28. Microphysics diabatic forcing (colored) &  e (contoured, m/s) Thompson/RRTMG CRF-on Thompson/RRTMG CRF-off 240 km Microphysics forcing in Domain 3 340K  e contour highlighted 28

29. Microphysics diabatic forcing (colored) &  e (contoured, m/s) Thompson/RRTMG CRF-on Thompson/RRTMG CRF-off Difference field Microphysics forcing in Domain 3 340K  e contour highlighted CRF-on storm: evidence of greater convective activity beyond eyewall Extra heating Eye size difference 29

30. Analysis TCs with CRF active have: Wider eyes Broader tangential wind fields More radially extensive diabatic heating Stronger, deeper upper-level outflow (stronger inflow, too) Comparable results from WRF-ARW versions of this experiment (not shown) 30

31. The physics of CRF: how and why Axisymmetric simulations with George Bryan’s CM1 Moist and dry versions 31

32. CM1 experimental design Axisymmetric framework (f-plane 20˚N) 5 km resolution Thompson microphysics* Rotunno-Emanuel moist-neutral sounding Goddard radiation Averaging period: 3-4 diurnal cycles Moist and dry experiments 32 *Not identical to HWRF version

33. Radial velocity (colored) & Tangential velocity (contoured, m/s) CRF-on CRF-off Difference field Eye size difference Stronger, deeper outflow CRF-on storm: wider eye, stronger outflow, broader wind field 300 km 33

34. Radial velocity (colored) & Tangential velocity (contoured, m/s) CRF-on CRF-off Difference field Tangential wind at lowest model level 34-kt wind radius considerably larger with CRF-on 34

35. Total condensate (colored) & Net radiative forcing (contoured, K/h) CRF-on CRF-off Difference field CRF-on storm: evidence of broader convective activity C W 35

36. CRF-fixed CRF forcing actively encourages storm expansion 36

37. Warming appears to be more significant factor CRF-fixed CRF > 0 CRF < 0 37

38. Radial velocity difference (colored) & CRF-clear sky radiative forcing difference (contoured, K/h) Dry model radial wind response (colored) to applied radiative forcing (contoured, K/h) 400 km 38 CRF-enhanced outflow carries hydrometeors outward, positive feedback

39. Warming appears to be more significant factor (again) CRF > 0 CRF < 0 39

40. Dry model vertical velocity response (colored) to applied radiative forcing difference (contoured, K/h) CRF > 0 CRF < 0 40 0.0075 m/s ~ 650 m per day

41. Dry model vertical velocity response (colored) to applied radiative forcing (contoured, K/h) CRF > 0 CRF < 0 Warming appears to be more significant factor (again) Weak but broad and persistent lifting leads to more convective activity 41

42. Cloud-radiative forcing (in-cloud) encourages stronger outflow and deep, broad ascent …leading to more radially extensive convective activity… …resulting in a broader wind field 42

43. A CM1 microphysics diabatic heating difference field (CRF-on – CRF-off) 43 Eye width difference Extra heating owing to CRF 400 km

44. Dry model response Diabatic forcing from moist model CRF-on 400 km 44

45. widens, broadens 400 km Dry model response Diabatic forcing from moist model CRF-on 45

46. 400 km Dry model response Diabatic forcing from moist model CRF-on 46

47. CRF-related cooling and warming in HWRF 47

48. 48

49. Warming appears to be more significant factor (again) 49

50. (almost no CRF) Operational HWRF deep clouds are not cloudy Operational physics called every time step 50

51. “[A]ll models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.” – George E. P. Box 51

52. Schematic model - I 52

53. Schematic model - II 53

54. Schematic model - III 54

55. Schematic model - IV 55

56. Summary Cloud-radiative forcing can have a significant impact on storm structure Directly by encouraging stronger outflow, broad ascent Indirectly by fostering enhanced convective activity Quickly -- much faster than one might guess Operational HWRF physics produces little to no CRF response Is direct validation of in-cloud LW forcing even possible? Thanks Jimy and Wei for the invitation Supported by the NOAA Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program (HFIP) 56

57. [end] 57

58. C W W C CRF > 0 CRF < 0 CRF-on CRF-off Total condensate (colored) & Net radiative forcing (contoured, K/h) Thompson/RRTMG 58

59. Lower troposphere vertical velocity (sfc-500 mb) Ferrier-based CRF-onCRF-off RRTMG (CRF-on)GFDL (no CRF) [as in operational] 59

60. Thompson/RRTMG CRF-on Ferrier/RRTMG CRF-on Thompson/RRTMG CRF-off Ferrier/GFDL No CRF 60

61. Total condensate (colored) & Net radiative forcing (contoured, K/h) CRF-on CRF-off Thompson Ferrier 354 km 61

62. Radial velocity (colored) & Tangential velocity (contoured, m/s) CRF-on CRF-off Thompson Ferrier 62

63. Microphysics diabatic forcing (colored) &  e (contoured, m/s) CRF-on CRF-off Thompson Ferrier 240 km 63

64. Radiative forcing (K/day) averaged 0 ≤ R ≤ 354 km in domain 2 One full diurnal cycle LW SW T = Thompson F = Ferrier 64