Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Thompson Runs Precipitation Comparison John D. McMillen.

Published byAudra Harper Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Thompson Runs Precipitation Comparison John D. McMillen."— Presentation transcript:

1 Thompson Runs Precipitation Comparison John D. McMillen

2 My GSLE Total Accum. Precip. 0230-1700 UTC WRF 3.4 Thom 3.4

3 WRF 3.4 Thom 3.3.1 Total Accum. Precip. 0230-1700 UTC

4 My GSLE Total Accum. Precip. 0230-1700 UTC WRF 3.4 Thom 3.4

5 WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.4 Total Accum. Precip. 0230-1700 UTC

6 WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1 Total Accum. Precip. Compiled in my File structure

7 Trevor’s GSLE Total Accum. Precip. 0230-1700 UTC WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1

8 Total Accumulated Precipitation Analysis 0230 - 1700 UTC GSLE Domain RunMax Precip (mm) Mean Precip (mm) Percent Change In Mean Precip Area GTE 10 mm Precip (km 2 ) Area GTE 15 mm Precip (km 2 ) Area GTE 20 mm Precip (km 2 ) My Control24.42991.2299N/A7396311 Trevor’s Control26.75501.23520.4275716228 WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1 24.08651.28144.187476920225 WRF 3.4 Thom 3.3.1 18.17401.24721.4001773280

9 Total Accumulated Precipitation Analysis 0230 - 1700 UTC GSLE Domain Percent Change in Mean Precipitation Microphysics Difference Model Difference Compiler Difference From My Control (3.4 3.4) To WRF 3.4 Thom 3.3.1 1.4001 From My Control (3.4 3.4) To WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.4 2.0714 From WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1 To WRF 3.4 Thom 3.3.1 -2.6753 From Trevor’s Control (3.3.1 3.3.1) To WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1 3.7423

10 My GSLE Total Accum. Graupel 0230-1700 UTC WRF 3.4 Thom 3.4

11 WRF 3.4 Thom 3.3.1 Total Accum. Graupel 0230-1700 UTC

12 My GSLE Total Accum. Graupel 0230-1700 UTC WRF 3.4 Thom 3.4

13 0230-1700 UTC WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.4 Total Accum. Graupel Compiled in my File structure

14 0230-1700 UTC WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1 Total Accum. Graupel Compiled in my File structure

15 Trevor’s GSLE Total Accum. Graupel 0230-1700 UTC WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1

16 Total Accumulated Graupel Analysis 0230 - 1700 UTC GSLE Domain RunMax Precip (mm) Mean Precip (mm) Percent Change In Mean Precip Area GTE 2 mm Precip (km 2 ) Area GTE 10 mm Precip (km 2 ) Area GTE 15 mm Precip (km 2 ) Area GTE 20 mm Precip (km 2 ) My Control19.87410.2391N/A68642140 Trevor’s Control 21.89200.2251-5.864766451307 WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1 18.90350.2213-7.445962569260 WRF 3.4 Thom 3.3.1 13.73770.24572.73397743200

17 Total Accumulated Graupel Analysis 0230 - 1700 UTC GSLE Domain Percent Change in Mean Precipitation Microphysics Difference Model Difference Compiler Difference From My Control (3.4 3.4) To WRF 3.4 Thom 3.3.1 2.7339 From My Control (3.4 3.4) To WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.4 -10.2745 From WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1 To WRF 3.4 Thom 3.3.1 10.9988 From Trevor’s Control (3.3.1 3.3.1) To WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1 -1.6797

18 My GSLE Total Accum. Snow 0230-1700 UTC WRF 3.4 Thom 3.4

19 WRF 3.4 Thom 3.3.1 Total Accum. Snow 0230-1700 UTC

20 My GSLE Total Accum. Snow 0230-1700 UTC WRF 3.4 Thom 3.4

21 0230-1700 UTC WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.4 Total Accum. Snow Compiled in my File structure

22 0230-1700 UTC WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1 Total Accum. Snow Compiled in my File structure

23 Trevor’s GSLE Total Accum. Snow 0230-1700 UTC WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1

24 Total Accumulated Snow Analysis 0230 - 1700 UTC GSLE Domain RunMax Precip (mm) Mean Precip (mm) Percent Change In Mean Precip Area GTE 10 mm Precip (km 2 ) My Control16.12170.8383N/A357 Trevor’s Control 17.57560.84891.2654407 WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1 18.67970.88825.9597475 WRF 3.4 Thom 3.3.1 14.66590.8331-0.6192363

25 Total Accumulated Snow Analysis 0230 - 1700 UTC GSLE Domain Percent Change in Mean Precipitation Microphysics Difference Model Difference Compiler Difference From My Control (3.4 3.4) To WRF 3.4 Thom 3.3.1 -0.6192 From My Control (3.4 3.4) To WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.4 5.0282 From WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1 To WRF 3.4 Thom 3.3.1 -6.2088 From Trevor’s Control (3.3.1 3.3.1) To WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1 4.6356

26 My GSLE Total Accum. Rain 0230-1700 UTC WRF 3.4 Thom 3.4

27 WRF 3.4 Thom 3.3.1 Total Accum. Rain 0230-1700 UTC

28 My GSLE Total Accum. Rain 0230-1700 UTC WRF 3.4 Thom 3.4

29 WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.4 Total Accum. Rain 0230-1700 UTC

30 Compiled in my File structure WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1 Total Accum. Rain

31 Trevor’s GSLE Total Accum. Rain 0230-1700 UTC WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1

32 Total Accumulated Rain Analysis 0230 - 1700 UTC GSLE Domain RunMax Precip (mm) Mean Precip (mm) Percent Change In Mean Precip Area GTE 3 mm Precip (km 2 ) My Control5.5652.1525N/A169 Trevor’s Control5.4256.16125.7172 WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1 6.1176.171912.6876188 WRF 3.4 Thom 3.3.1 4.7842.168410.4068201

33 Total Accumulated Rain Analysis 0230 - 1700 UTC GSLE Domain Percent Change in Mean Precipitation Microphysics Difference Model Difference Compiler Difference From My Control (3.4 3.4) To WRF 3.4 Thom 3.3.1 10.4068 From My Control (3.4 3.4) To WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.4 5.1787 From WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1 To WRF 3.4 Thom 3.3.1 -2.0240 From Trevor’s Control (3.3.1 3.3.1) To WRF 3.3.1 Thom 3.3.1 6.1176

34 Changes in Thompson Scheme Graupel Density Increased Changes Size Distribution More smaller graupel 1-3mm and less larger graupel >8mm Increases mass especially of larger graupel Causes more small graupel accumulation in my control Snow fall velocity parameter in the fall speed power law Increased snow fall speed Reduced accumulated snow in my control Thompson 2008 noted increased precipitation accumulation with decreased fall speed Cloud Ice mass/number balance adjusted Rain processes slightly changed

35 Conclusions Differences between controls are small Changes in Thompson appear to correlate with differences in controls I expanded my RIP abilities I performed analytical comparisons of wrfout data I examined the Thompson scheme on the code level to find what had changed between versions I need to do more…

Download ppt "Thompson Runs Precipitation Comparison John D. McMillen."

Similar presentations

Cloud droplet activation schemes. Motivation Met Office: UM new microphysics (4a scheme), linked to aerosols via parameterisations. Also WRF uses similar.

Cloud droplet activation schemes. Motivation Met Office: UM new microphysics (4a scheme), linked to aerosols via parameterisations. Also WRF uses similar.
Meteorologisches Institut der Universität München

Meteorologisches Institut der Universität München
WMO International Cloud Modeling Workshop, 12-16 July 2004 A two-moment microphysical scheme for mesoscale and microscale cloud resolving models Axel Seifert.

WMO International Cloud Modeling Workshop, July 2004 A two-moment microphysical scheme for mesoscale and microscale cloud resolving models Axel Seifert.
Toward Improving Representation of Model Microphysics Errors in a Convection-Allowing Ensemble: Evaluation and Diagnosis of mixed- Microphysics and Perturbed.

Toward Improving Representation of Model Microphysics Errors in a Convection-Allowing Ensemble: Evaluation and Diagnosis of mixed- Microphysics and Perturbed.
Advancing Numerical Weather Prediction of Great Salt Lake-Effect Precipitation John D McMillen.

Advancing Numerical Weather Prediction of Great Salt Lake-Effect Precipitation John D McMillen.
URBAN GROWTH AND AEROSOL EFECTS ON CONVECTION OVER HOUSTON Gustavo G. Carrió, William R. Cotton, William Y. Cheng, and Steve M. Saleeby Colorado State.

URBAN GROWTH AND AEROSOL EFECTS ON CONVECTION OVER HOUSTON Gustavo G. Carrió, William R. Cotton, William Y. Cheng, and Steve M. Saleeby Colorado State.
To perform statistical analyses of observations from dropsondes, microphysical imaging probes, and coordinated NOAA P-3 and NASA ER-2 Doppler radars To.

To perform statistical analyses of observations from dropsondes, microphysical imaging probes, and coordinated NOAA P-3 and NASA ER-2 Doppler radars To.
Ju-Hye Kim and Dong-Bin Shin* Department of Atmospheric Sciences

Ju-Hye Kim and Dong-Bin Shin* Department of Atmospheric Sciences
What we have learned about Orographic Precipitation Mechanisms from MAP and IMPROVE-2: MODELING Socorro Medina, Robert Houze, Brad Smull University of.

What we have learned about Orographic Precipitation Mechanisms from MAP and IMPROVE-2: MODELING Socorro Medina, Robert Houze, Brad Smull University of.
MAP and IMPROVE II Experimental Areas SHARE Workshop, Boulder, 5 May 2005.

MAP and IMPROVE II Experimental Areas SHARE Workshop, Boulder, 5 May 2005.
Update on the Northwest Regional Modeling System Cliff Mass, Dave Ovens, Jeff Baars, Mark Albright, Phil Regulski, Dave Carey University of Washington.

Update on the Northwest Regional Modeling System Cliff Mass, Dave Ovens, Jeff Baars, Mark Albright, Phil Regulski, Dave Carey University of Washington.
IMPROVE data meeting, Seattle, WA, 13 July 2005 Recent NWP results from IMPROVE Greg Thompson, Roy Rasmussen, Bill Hall, Kyoko Ikeda (NCAR-RAL), Axel Seifert.

IMPROVE data meeting, Seattle, WA, 13 July 2005 Recent NWP results from IMPROVE Greg Thompson, Roy Rasmussen, Bill Hall, Kyoko Ikeda (NCAR-RAL), Axel Seifert.
Univ of AZ WRF Model Verification. Method NCEP Stage IV data used for precipitation verification – Stage IV is composite of rain fall observations and.

Univ of AZ WRF Model Verification. Method NCEP Stage IV data used for precipitation verification – Stage IV is composite of rain fall observations and.
Mountain wave structures occurring within a major orographic precipitation event: Part 2: Observed and Modeled Precipitation Fields Matt Garvert, Brad.

Mountain wave structures occurring within a major orographic precipitation event: Part 2: Observed and Modeled Precipitation Fields Matt Garvert, Brad.
00 UTC 18 Dec Runs 204 h forecast of 540 DM height valid 12 UTC 26 Dec.

00 UTC 18 Dec Runs 204 h forecast of 540 DM height valid 12 UTC 26 Dec.
Ensemble Post-Processing and it’s Potential Benefits for the Operational Forecaster Michael Erickson and Brian A. Colle School of Marine and Atmospheric.

Ensemble Post-Processing and it’s Potential Benefits for the Operational Forecaster Michael Erickson and Brian A. Colle School of Marine and Atmospheric.
LAKE EFFECT SNOW SIMULATION John D McMillen. LAKE BONNEVILLE EFFECT SNOW.

LAKE EFFECT SNOW SIMULATION John D McMillen. LAKE BONNEVILLE EFFECT SNOW.
Uintah Basin WRF Testing Erik Neemann 20 Sep 2013.

Uintah Basin WRF Testing Erik Neemann 20 Sep 2013.
Impact of Graupel Parameterization Schemes on Idealized Bow Echo Simulations Rebecca D. Adams-Selin Adams-Selin, R. D., S. C. van den Heever, and R. D.

Impact of Graupel Parameterization Schemes on Idealized Bow Echo Simulations Rebecca D. Adams-Selin Adams-Selin, R. D., S. C. van den Heever, and R. D.
Microphysics complexity in squall line simulations. As high-resolution climate models increasingly turn towards an explicit representation of convection,

Microphysics complexity in squall line simulations. As high-resolution climate models increasingly turn towards an explicit representation of convection,

Similar presentations

Ads by Google