Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Uintah Basin WRF Testing Erik Neemann 20 Sep 2013.

Published byJustin Stevens Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Uintah Basin WRF Testing Erik Neemann 20 Sep 2013."— Presentation transcript:

1 Uintah Basin WRF Testing Erik Neemann 20 Sep 2013

2 Overview -Description of WRF Setup & Microphysics edits -Explanation of WRF edits -Reasoning for Microphysics edits -General Results -Examples of simulation differences -Errors, Time Series plots, & Vertical profiles -Conclusions

3 Summary of Recent WRF Testing & Modifications -Idealized snow cover in Uintah Basin and mountains -Initialized colder skin temperature in the Uintah Basin -Updated land use data to NLCD 2006 -Modified VEGPARM.TBL -Snow albedo changes -Edited relative humidity in NAM input files -Microphysics modifications (Thompson) -Changes to homogeneous freezing temperature -Changes to ice nucleation temperature -Turning off cloud ice sedimentation -Turning off cloud ice autoconversion to snow

4 17 cm 22 to 28 cm (overestimation inside Uintah Basin) Idealized snow cover in Uintah Basin and mountains -Elevation-dependent snow cover above 2380 m (17 cm to 1 m above 2900 m) -Uniform snow in basin (17 cm depth, 21.25 kg/m 3 SWE, 8:1 ratio) 00Z 1 Feb 2013 Domain 3 Modified Snow Cover 00Z 1 Feb 2013 NAM Analysis Snow Cover

5 Initialized colder skin temperature in Uintah Basin -Initialized skin temperature to 262 K in the basin (below 2380 m) 00Z 1 Feb 2013 Modified Skin Temperaure 00Z 1 Feb 2013 NAM Analysis Skin Temperature 262 K 267 to 268 K

6 Updated Land Use data -Updated land use data to NLCD 2006 (1 arc-second) -Uintah Basin primary “shrubland” and “cropland/grassland mosaic” -“Barren or sparsely vegetated”, “grassland”, and “irrigated cropland & pasture” significantly decreased 262 K 267 to 268 K New NLCD 2006 data Old USGS Land Use data More urban categories Changes in Uintah Basin

7 Modified VEGPARM.TBL -Modified VEGPARM.TBL “SNUP” to 0.02 for vegetation categories 5 & 8 (cropland/grassland mosaic & shrubland) -Allows 2 cm of SWE (20 kg/m 3 ) to “cover up” vegetation with snow -Enables albedo to attain “max snow albedo”, instead of combination of snow albedo and vegetation albedo Changed from.04 to.02 Changed from.03 to.02

8 0.82 0.76 0.72 0.76 Snow Albedo changes -Combination of VEGPARM.TBL and snow albedo edits achieved desire albedos -Set snow albedo to 0.82 within the basin (below 2380 m) -Set snow albedo to 0.71 outside the basin within domain 2 New snow albedo edits (0.82 in Basin, 0.71 outer box) Original snow albedo edits (0.71 everywhere) *Note: color scale are different

9 Edited RH in NAM input files -Crudely subtracted 5, 20, or 40% from RH in NAM input files -Reduced RH by fraction if already very low to prevent negative values 00Z 1 Feb 2013 Edited NAM RH reduced 20 % 00Z 1 Feb 2013 Original NAM RH

10 Edited RH in NAM input files - Integrated clouds hydrometeors -Reduced RH decreased clouds earlier in simulation (1-2 days) -All simulations converged on very similar cloudy solution after first couple days Thompson 1.33km Thompson 4km RH-5% Thompson 4km RH-20% 15Z 1 Feb 2013 15Z 5 Feb 2013

11 Reasoning for Microphysics Modifications -Several modification were made to Thompson microphysics schemes: -Changes to homogeneous freezing temperature (HGFR) from 235 to 271 K -Desired effect of changing liquid clouds to ice clouds -Changes to ice nucleation temperature from -12 to range of -3 to -15 C -Desired same effect as changing homogeneous freezing temperature, but more physically realistic -Turning off cloud ice sedimentation -Effort to prevent cloud ice from “falling out” of cloud -Turning off cloud ice autoconversion to snow -Effort to maintain cloud ice by preventing it’s conversion into snow category and precipitating out of cloud -Modifications were conducted in various combinations to determine impact on model simulations -In final tests, modifications were then only allowed in lowest 15 model levels (~500 m), while everything above was unchanged -Effort to create more realistic simulation by only changing low levels

12 General Results of Microphysics Modifications -Combination of edits seemed to converge on 3 solutions: 1 - “clear sky” solution with very little cloud ice and negligible LW radiation -Simulations where ice clouds were created and: -Ice autoconversion to snow was ON -Autoconversion OFF, but sedimentation of cloud ice ON 2 - “thick ice cloud” solution with moderate LW radiation -Simulations where ice clouds were created and: -Both autoconversion and sedimentation were OFF 3 - “thick liquid cloud” solution with strong LW radiation when: -No microphysics edits -Simulations where ice clouds were created via ice nucleation: -Either sedimentation or autoconversion was ON

13 Integrated Clouds TIAU0 09Z 3 Feb 2013 TIAU0 TS20IAU0 Cloud Ice bottom 10 levels TS20IAU0 Microphysics Modifications - Cloud Ice sedimentation

14 Microphysics Modifications - Sedimentation and Autoconversion TFSCAWSM3A TIAU0 TIAU20 TIAU5TSIAU0 Cloud ice bottom 10 levels - 06Z 4 Feb 2013

15 Microphysics Modifications - Sedimentation and Autoconversion Sedimentation OFF, Autoconversion ON WSM3 Microphysics Sedimentation OFF, Autoconversion OFF Sedimentation OFF, 20% Autoconversion Sedimentation OFF, 5% Autoconversion Sedimentation ON, Autoconversion OFF Cloud ice bottom 10 levels - 4 Feb 2013 06Z

16 Effect of Sedimentation on 2m Temps, Clouds, LW Radiation 2m Temps Integrated Clouds 06Z 4 Feb 2013 LW Radiation at sfc 2m Temps Integrated Clouds LW Radiation at sfc TIN3IAU0 - Ice sedimentation OFF TSIN3IAU0 - Ice sedimentation ON

17 Sedimentation - Average cloud ice & cloud water bottom 10 levels TIN3IAU0 - Ice sedimentation OFF Cloud Ice 06Z 4 Feb 2013 TSIN3IAU0 - Ice sedimentation ON Cloud Water Cloud Ice Cloud Water

18 Impact of Liquid Clouds vs. Ice Clouds 4 Feb 2013 06Z -Liquid clouds in the Uintah Basin resulted in an additional 10-70 W/m 2 of Longwave radiation the surface on 4 Feb 2013 at 06Z -Additional energy kept surface temperatures warmer by 2-5 degrees C inside the Uintah Basin on 4 Feb 2013 at 06Z

19 Uintah Basin CAP Simulation 1-6 Feb 2013 Distribution of cloud ice with and without sedimentation QSNOW 6.6x10 -3 QICE 5.6x10 -4 TIN3IAU0 TSIN3IAU0 -Allowing cloud ice sedimentation in low levels resulted in a liquid-phase dominated cloud -Both cases had essentially identical results above 2-3 km QCLOUD 0.045 g/kg QICE 0.11 g/kg

20 Mean Errors: Original Thomp 4km = 3.5576 C WSM3 0.82 alb 4km = 1.9254 C Thomp RH-40%, 0.82 alb = 2.9908 C Thomp 300 CCN 0.82 alb = 1.3055 C Thomp ice, fall speed zero = 3.0842 C Thomp ice, FS=0, 300 CCN, alb = -0.75 C Uintah Basin CAP Simulation 1-6 Feb 2013 “thick liquid cloud” “thick ice cloud” “clear sky”

21 Mean Abs Errors: Original Thomp 4km = 3.9772 C WSM3 0.82 alb 4km = 2.5456 C Thomp RH-40%, 0.82 alb = 2.6232 C Thomp 300 CCN 0.82 alb = 3.1315 C Thomp ice, fall speed zero = 3.4003 C Thomp ice, FS=0, 300 CCN, alb = 3.9772 C Uintah Basin CAP Simulation 1-6 Feb 2013

22 RMSE: Original Thomp 4km = 4.7447 C WSM3 0.82 alb 4km = 3.1065 C Thomp RH-40%, 0.82 alb = 3.2344 C Thomp 300 CCN 0.82 alb = 3.8061 C Thomp ice, fall speed zero = 3.9650 C Thomp ice, FS=0, 300 CCN, alb = 2.5162 C Uintah Basin CAP Simulation 1-6 Feb 2013

23 2m Temperature Errors for all runs and accumulated snow at Ouray Thompson runs with HGFR temp = 271.15 WSM3 runs Thompson runs with reduced RH in boundary conditions No tweaks to microphysics (Thompson & Morrison) Thompson runs with different cloud droplet concentrations Thompson runs with ice nucleation changes in bottom 15 model levels

24 Uintah Basin CAP Simulation 1-6 Feb 2013

25

26

27

28 1 Feb 20132 Feb 20133 Feb 2013 4 Feb 20135 Feb 20136 Feb 2013 18Z Roosevelt

29 1 Feb 20132 Feb 20133 Feb 2013 4 Feb 20135 Feb 20136 Feb 2013 12Z Horsepool

30 1 Feb 20132 Feb 20133 Feb 2013 4 Feb 20135 Feb 20136 Feb 2013 12Z Ouray

31 1 Feb 20132 Feb 20133 Feb 2013 4 Feb 20135 Feb 20136 Feb 2013 12Z Red Wash

32 Conclusions -Preferred WRF run and edits (TIN12IAU0) -Include idealized snow cover, albedo, skin temperature, updated land use, and edited VEGPARM.TBL -Do not edit RH in NAM initialization/boundary condition files -Only make microphysics edits in lowest 15 model levels -Leave ice nucleation at default temperature of -12 C -Turn off autoconversion and sedimentation in bottom 15 model levels -Preferred setup results in: -Ice-phase clouds in place of original liquid-phase cloud -Colder surface temperatures with smaller errors/bias -More physically representative radiative properties of ice-phase cloud -Shallower PBL that more closely matches observed soundings

33 Impact of Liquid Clouds vs. Ice Clouds Over the entire model run, liquid clouds produced an average of 7-20 W/m 2 more longwave energy than ice clouds in the Unitah Basin

34 Impact of Liquid Clouds vs. Ice Clouds Over the entire model run, liquid cloud case averaged 0.4 - 1.6 deg C warmer than the ice cloud case in the Uintah Basin

35 Uintah Basin CAP Simulation 1-6 Feb 2013 Model runs with “thick liquid clouds” Model runs with “thick ice clouds” Additional 2-3 deg C warm bias overnight Model runs with “clear sky”

36 Conclusions

37

38 Sedimentation - Average cloud ice & cloud water bottom 10 levels Ice-Phase Cloud 06Z 4 Feb 2013 Liquid-Phase Cloud 2m Temps

Download ppt "Uintah Basin WRF Testing Erik Neemann 20 Sep 2013."

Similar presentations

Quantifying sub-grid cloud structure and representing it GCMs

Quantifying sub-grid cloud structure and representing it GCMs
UU Unitah Basin WRF Model Configuration (same as DEQ) See Alcott and Steenburgh 2013 for further details on most aspects of this numerical configuration:

UU Unitah Basin WRF Model Configuration (same as DEQ) See Alcott and Steenburgh 2013 for further details on most aspects of this numerical configuration:
Physical Properties of the Snowpack Richard Brandt – University of Washington Paul Smith’s College 21 Feb 2006.

Physical Properties of the Snowpack Richard Brandt – University of Washington Paul Smith’s College 21 Feb 2006.
Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks Dennis L. Hartmann in collaboration with Mark Zelinka Department of Atmospheric Sciences University of Washington PCC Summer.

Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks Dennis L. Hartmann in collaboration with Mark Zelinka Department of Atmospheric Sciences University of Washington PCC Summer.
Jared H. Bowden Saravanan Arunachalam

Jared H. Bowden Saravanan Arunachalam
Dynamical Downscaling of CCSM Using WRF Yang Gao 1, Joshua S. Fu 1, Yun-Fat Lam 1, John Drake 1, Kate Evans 2 1 University of Tennessee, USA 2 Oak Ridge.

Dynamical Downscaling of CCSM Using WRF Yang Gao 1, Joshua S. Fu 1, Yun-Fat Lam 1, John Drake 1, Kate Evans 2 1 University of Tennessee, USA 2 Oak Ridge.
Recent performance statistics for AMPS real-time forecasts Kevin W. Manning – National Center for Atmospheric Research NCAR Earth System Laboratory Mesoscale.

Recent performance statistics for AMPS real-time forecasts Kevin W. Manning – National Center for Atmospheric Research NCAR Earth System Laboratory Mesoscale.
Radiative Properties of Clouds SOEE3410 Ken Carslaw Lecture 3 of a series of 5 on clouds and climate Properties and distribution of clouds Cloud microphysics.

Radiative Properties of Clouds SOEE3410 Ken Carslaw Lecture 3 of a series of 5 on clouds and climate Properties and distribution of clouds Cloud microphysics.
Climate Forcing and Physical Climate Responses Theory of Climate Climate Change (continued)

Climate Forcing and Physical Climate Responses Theory of Climate Climate Change (continued)
John J. Cassano - University of Colorado Wieslaw Maslowski -Naval Postgraduate School William Gutowski - Iowa State University Dennis Lettenmaier – University.

John J. Cassano - University of Colorado Wieslaw Maslowski -Naval Postgraduate School William Gutowski - Iowa State University Dennis Lettenmaier – University.
Initial testing of longwave parameterizations for broken water cloud fields - accounting for transmission Ezra E. Takara and Robert G. Ellingson Department.

Initial testing of longwave parameterizations for broken water cloud fields - accounting for transmission Ezra E. Takara and Robert G. Ellingson Department.
Radiative Properties of Clouds ENVI3410 : Lecture 9 Ken Carslaw Lecture 3 of a series of 5 on clouds and climate Properties and distribution of clouds.

Radiative Properties of Clouds ENVI3410 : Lecture 9 Ken Carslaw Lecture 3 of a series of 5 on clouds and climate Properties and distribution of clouds.
Spectral microphysics in weather forecast models with special emphasis on cloud droplet nucleation Verena Grützun, Oswald Knoth, Martin Simmel, Ralf Wolke.

Spectral microphysics in weather forecast models with special emphasis on cloud droplet nucleation Verena Grützun, Oswald Knoth, Martin Simmel, Ralf Wolke.
 Z NO x Snow Cover VOCs O3O3 Fig. 1.1 Simplified schematic of typical situation leading to high ozone concentrations. Red line represent potential temperature.

 Z NO x Snow Cover VOCs O3O3 Fig. 1.1 Simplified schematic of typical situation leading to high ozone concentrations. Red line represent potential temperature.
Summary of Current and Ongoing Cold Pool Modeling Research University of Utah/DAQ CAP John Horel, Erik Crosman, Erik Neemann University of Utah Department.

Summary of Current and Ongoing Cold Pool Modeling Research University of Utah/DAQ CAP John Horel, Erik Crosman, Erik Neemann University of Utah Department.
OAQPS Air Quality Modeling Group Fine-scale Meteorological Simulation of Cold Pools in Salt Lake City Chris Misenis, Kirk Baker, Pat Dolwick October 29,

OAQPS Air Quality Modeling Group Fine-scale Meteorological Simulation of Cold Pools in Salt Lake City Chris Misenis, Kirk Baker, Pat Dolwick October 29,
Uintah Basin WRF Testing Erik Neemann 20 Sep 2013.

Uintah Basin WRF Testing Erik Neemann 20 Sep 2013.
Mesoscale Modeling Review the tutorial at: –In class.

Mesoscale Modeling Review the tutorial at: –In class.
19 December 2012 1 ConclusionsResultsMethodologyBackground Chip HelmsSensitivity of CM1 to Initial θ' Magnitude and Radius Examining the Sensitivity of.

19 December ConclusionsResultsMethodologyBackground Chip HelmsSensitivity of CM1 to Initial θ' Magnitude and Radius Examining the Sensitivity of.
Toward Improved Numerical Forecasting of Wintertime Stable Boundary Layers Erik Crosman 1, John Horel 1, Chris Foster 1, Erik Neemann 1, Brian Blaylock.

Toward Improved Numerical Forecasting of Wintertime Stable Boundary Layers Erik Crosman 1, John Horel 1, Chris Foster 1, Erik Neemann 1, Brian Blaylock.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google