2019
DOI: 10.1175/jas-d-18-0271.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating Simulated Microphysics during OLYMPEX Using GPM Satellite Observations

Abstract: This study evaluates moist physics in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model using observations collected during the Olympic Mountains Experiment (OLYMPEX) field campaign by the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) satellite, including data from the GPM Microwave Imager (GMI) and Dual-Frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR) instruments. Even though WRF using Thompson et al. microphysics was able to realistically simulate water vapor concentrations approaching the barrier, there was underprediction of c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Systematic cold biases in both experiments for the LF MW channel is beyond the scope of this study but needs further investigation, and may be related to biases in the microphysics scheme, as the Thompson et al. ( 2008 ) microphysics scheme is known to underpredict rainwater (e.g., Conrick & Mass, 2019 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Systematic cold biases in both experiments for the LF MW channel is beyond the scope of this study but needs further investigation, and may be related to biases in the microphysics scheme, as the Thompson et al. ( 2008 ) microphysics scheme is known to underpredict rainwater (e.g., Conrick & Mass, 2019 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…However, both experiments' analyses noticeably underestimated the amount and areal extent of the liquid hydrometeors, indicated by the cooler-than-observed LF MW BTs. Systematic cold biases in both experiments for the LF MW channel is beyond the scope of this study but needs further investigation, and may be related to biases in the microphysics scheme, as the Thompson et al (2008) microphysics scheme is known to underpredict rainwater (e.g., Conrick & Mass, 2019).…”
Section: Comparison Of Enkf Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the corresponding vertical profiles of ice-phase hydrometeors (ice and snow) in ERA5 are close to those retrieved from TRMM/GPM while the rain water content is less than that from TRMM/GPM (Figures 1i-l), consistent with the horizontal distribution in Figures 1a-h. It should be noted that the hydrometeors retrieved from satellite observation contain biases as well and they merely used as a reference (Conrick and Mass, 2019;Wu et al, 2021), so the cloud properties produced in the ERA5 are generally reliable but the uncertainties still need to be cautioned. Also, Figure 1m,n shows the comparisons of 24-hr maximum wind speed change during the RI stage in landfalling Super TYs over the WNP region in summer and autumn (cases defined in Section 3) from ERA5 and JTWC.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…WRF forecasts predicted significantly larger amounts of spillover precipitation in the Elwha basin than the PRISM normal. However, the WRF forecasts are imperfect: WRF underestimated precipitation by up to 100 mm at OLYMPEX gauge locations around the Quinault basin during larger storms (Conrick and Mass, 2019a). Additionally, the OLYMPEX campaign only studied a single wet season which may not have been representative of longer-term average precipitation.…”
Section: Long-term Measurements Of Rain-shadow Strengthmentioning
confidence: 99%