Observed and Bin Model Simulated Evolution of Drop Size Distributions in High‐Based Cumulus Congestus Over the United Arab Emirates

Abstract

It is well-known that "warm rain" generation-that is, the development of drizzle and rain sized drops (roughly 𝐴𝐴 𝐴 50-100 μm diameter) within the cloud not involving the ice phase-depends on characteristics of the cloud droplet size distribution (DSD). Observational evidence has shown that the droplet effective radius must exceed 12-14 μm prior to development of warm rain (e.g., Freud & Rosenfeld, 2012;Gerber, 1996;Rosenfeld & Gutman, 1994;Suzuki et al., 2010). A critical factor is also the DSD width, with wide DSDs promoting growth of drizzle-sized drops through collision-coalescence owing to the differential settling velocities of various sized drops (e.g.,

A bin-microphysics parcel model investigation of secondary ice formation in an idealised shallow convective cloud

“…Baker et al, 1980;Telford and Chai, 1980) or turbulence (e.g. Pinsky et al, 2008;Grabowski and Wang, 2013;Chen et al, 2018) See Morrison et al (2022) for more discussion of these processes.…”

Raindrop Size Distributions Simulated Using a Bin Microphysics Scheme: Different Biases in Stratiform and Convective Rain From an Extratropical Cyclone

“…There have been some studies that evaluated the hydrometeor size distributions simulated using bin microphysics schemes (Chen et al., 2023; Fridlind et al., 2017; Hernández Pardo et al., 2021; Iguchi, Matsui, et al., 2012; Khairoutdinov & Kogan, 1999; Morrison et al., 2022; Shpund et al., 2019; Witte et al., 2019). Khairoutdinov and Kogan (1999) and Witte et al.…”

“…There have been some studies that evaluated the hydrometeor size distributions simulated using bin microphysics schemes (Chen et al, 2023;Fridlind et al, 2017;Hernández Pardo et al, 2021;Iguchi, Matsui, et al, 2012;Khairoutdinov & Kogan, 1999;Morrison et al, 2022;Shpund et al, 2019;Witte et al, 2019). Khairoutdinov and Kogan (1999) and Witte et al (2019) evaluated the simulated cloud drop size distributions in marine stratocumulus in comparison with aircraft observations and both found prominent discrepancies at the cloud boundaries.…”

Do Double‐Moment Microphysics Schemes Make Reliable Predictions on the Raindrop Number Concentration?: A Squall‐Line Case Study

“…Observed variables such as surface precipitation rate and cloud macrophysical properties have been extensively used to evaluate model performance, but they can provide only limited observational constraints to the cloud microphysical processes in microphysics schemes. In the needs for a further level of evaluation of cloud microphysics in models, some recent studies utilize the observation of drop size distribution characteristics from polarimetric radars, airborne drop size distribution probes, and ground‐based disdrometers (e.g., Brown et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2021; Lei et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2022; Morrison et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2020; Witte et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2021).…”

“…distribution probes, and ground-based disdrometers (e.g., Brown et al, 2016;Chen et al, 2021;Lei et al, 2020;Lin et al, 2022;Morrison et al, 2022;Wang et al, 2020;Witte et al, 2019;Wu et al, 2021). Brown et al (2016) simulated two hurricanes using five different bulk microphysics schemes and one bin microphysics scheme in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model and evaluated the simulated raindrop size distribution (RSD) characteristics by comparing the observed and simulated polarimetric radar variables.…”