Advertisement

Sensitivity of Precipitation Modeling to Uncertainty of Initial Conditions

  • Xiaofan Li
  • Shouting Gao
Chapter
Part of the Springer Atmospheric Sciences book series (SPRINGERATMO)

Abstract

The meaningful precipitation simulation and estimate require sophisticate models with accurate cloud microphysical and radiative parameterization schemes. One of such models is cloud-resolving model. The precipitation processes are highly nonlinearly associated with the dynamic, thermodynamic, cloud microphysical and radiative processes, which makes precipitation simulations very sensitive to temperature, water vapor, and parameterization schemes of these physical processes (Grabowski et al. 1998; Donner et al. 1999; Guichard et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002; Petch et al. 2002, 2008; Petch 2004, 2006; Phillips and Donner 2006; Keil et al. 2008). Petch and Gray (2001) found that the model domain size, horizontal resolution, use of a third dimension, and cloud microphysical parameterization have impacts on the model simulations. Petch et al. (2002) revealed that the finer horizontal resolution (<250 m) is required to realistically reproduce the development of boundary-layer clouds. Cheng and Xu (2006) studied the effects of turbulence closures on cloud simulations and found that fully prognostic quasi-Gaussian based third-order closures produce more and deeper shallow cumuli but smaller and narrower convective clouds than intermediately prognostic double-Gaussian based third-order closures do. Khairoutdinov and Randall (2003) showed that the uncertainties of precipitation simulations are much more sensitive to the uncertainties of initial conditions than the uncertainties of cloud microphysical parameterization schemes. Li et al. (2006) and Gao and Li (2008) conducted 2D cloud-resolving model simulations with the perturbed initial PW and temperature conditions and compared these perturbed experiments with the control experiment. They found significant differences in cloud and precipitation simulations with the given precipitation water perturbations. The further budget analysis indicates that the errors of initial conditions affect cloud and precipitation ­simulations through a biased condensation process.

Keywords

Vapor Condensation Precipitation Simulation Perturbation Experiment Surface Rain Rate Water Vapor Convergence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aires F, Rossow WB, Scott NA, Chedin A (2002) Remote sensing from the infrared atmospheric sounding interferometer instrument, 2, Simultaneous retrieval of temperature, water vapor, and ozone atmospheric profiles. J Geophys Res. doi:10.1029/2001JD001591Google Scholar
  2. Cheng A, Xu KM (2006) Simulation of shallow cumuli and their transition to deep convecitve clouds by cloud-resolving models with different their-order turbulence closures. Q J R Meteorol Soc 132:359–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Donner LJ, Semen CJ, Hemler RS (1999) Three-dimensional cloud-system modeling of GATE convection. J Atmos Sci 56:1885–1912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gao S, Li X (2008) Impacts of initial conditions on cloud-resolving simulations. Adv Atmos Sci 25:737–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gao S, Li X (2009) Dependence of the accuracy of precipitation and cloud simulation on time and spatial scales. Adv Atmos Adv 26:1108–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grabowski WW, Wu X, Moncrieff MW, Hall WD (1998) Cloud-resolving model of tropical cloud systems during Phase III of GATE. Part II: effects of resolution and the third spatial dimension. J Atmos Sci 55:3264–3282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grody N, Zhao J, Ferraro R, Weng F, Boers R (2001) Determination of precipitable water and cloud liquid water over oceans from the NOAA 15 advanced microwave sounding unit. J Geophys Res 106:2943–2953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guichard F, Redelsperger JL, Lafore JP (2000) Cloud resolving simulations of convective activity during TOGA-COARE: sensitivity to external sources of uncertainties. Q J R Meteorol Soc 126:3067–3095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Keil C, Ropnack A, Craig GC, Schumann U (2008) Sensitivity of quantitative precipitation forecast to height dependent changes in humidity. Geophys Res Let. doi:10.1029/2008GL033657Google Scholar
  10. Khairoutdinov MF, Randall DA (2003) Cloud resolving modeling of the ARM summer 1997 IOP: model formulation, results, uncertainties, and sensitivities. J Atmos Sci 60:607–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Li X, Shen X (2010) Sensitivity of cloud-resolving precipitation simulations to uncertainty of vertical structures of initial conditions. Q J R Meteorol Soc 136:201–212, (c) Royal Meteorological Society. Reprinted with permissionCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Li X, Sui CH, Lau KM (1999) Large-scale forcing and cloud-radiation interaction in the tropical deep convective regime. J Atmos Sci 56:3028–3042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li X, Sui CH, Lau KM (2002) Dominant cloud microphysical processes in a tropical oceanic convective system: a 2-D cloud resolving modeling study. Mon Weather Rev 130:2481–2491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li X, Zhang S, Zhang DL (2006) Thermodynamic, cloud microphysics and rainfall responses to initial moisture perturbations in the tropical deep convective regime. J Geophys Res. doi:10.1029/2005JD006968Google Scholar
  15. Petch JC (2004) The predictability of deep convection in cloud-resolving simulations over land. Q J R Meteorol Soc 130:3173–3187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Petch JC (2006) Sensitivity studies of developing convection in a cloud-resolving model. Q J R Meteorol Soc 132:345–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Petch JC, Gray MEB (2001) Sensitivity studies using a cloud-resolving model simulation of the tropical west Pacific. Q J R Meteorol Soc 127:2287–2306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Petch JC, Brown AR, Gray MEB (2002) The impact of horizontal resolution on the simulations of convective development over land. Q J R Meteorol Soc 128:2031–2044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Petch JC, Blossey PN, Bretherton CS (2008) Differences in the lower troposphere in two- and three-dimensional cloud-resolving model simulations of deep convection. Q J R Meteorol Soc 134:1941–1946Google Scholar
  20. Phillips VT, Donner LJ (2006) Cloud microphysics, radiation and vertical velocities in two- and three-dimensional simulations of deep convection. Q J R Meteorol Soc 132:3011–3033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Susskind J, Barnet CD, Blaisdell JM (2003) Retrieval of atmospheric and surface parameters from AIR/AMSU/HSB data in the presence of clouds. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 41:390–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Xu KM, Cederwall RT, Donner LJ, Grabowski WW, Guichard F, Johnson DE, Khairoutdinov M, Krueger SK, Petch JC, Randall DA, Seman CJ, Tao WK, Wang D, Xie SC, Yio JJ, Zhang MH (2002) An intercomparison of cloud resolving models with the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement summer 1997 Intensive Observation Period data. Q J R Meteorol Soc 128:593–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NOAA/NESDIS/Center for Satellite Applications and ResearchCamp SpringsUSA
  2. 2.Laboratory of Cloud-Precipitation Physics and Severe Storms Institute of Atmospheric PhysicsChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations