Influence of microphysical schemes on atmospheric water in the Weather Research and Forecasting model

Abstract. This study examines how different microphysical parameterization schemes influence orographically induced precipitation and the distributions of hydrometeors and water vapour for midlatitude summer conditions in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. A high-resolution two-dimensional idealized simulation is used to assess the differences between the schemes in which a moist air flow is interacting with a bell-shaped 2 km high mountain. Periodic lateral boundary conditions are chosen to recirculate atmospheric water in the domain. It is found that the 13 selected microphysical schemes conserve the water in the model domain. The gain or loss of water is less than 0.81% over a simulation time interval of 61 days. The differences of the microphysical schemes in terms of the distributions of water vapour, hydrometeors and accumulated precipitation are presented and discussed. The Kessler scheme, the only scheme without ice-phase processes, shows final values of cloud liquid water 14 times greater than the other schemes. The differences among the other schemes are not as extreme, but still they differ up to 79% in water vapour, up to 10 times in hydrometeors and up to 64% in accumulated precipitation at the end of the simulation. The microphysical schemes also differ in the surface evaporation rate. The WRF single-moment 3-class scheme has the highest surface evaporation rate compensated by the highest precipitation rate. The different distributions of hydrometeors and water vapour of the microphysical schemes induce differences up to 49 W m−2 in the downwelling shortwave radiation and up to 33 W m−2 in the downwelling longwave radiation.

[1]  W. Gallus,et al.  NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE Comparison of Impacts of WRF Dynamic Core, Physics Package, and Initial Conditions on Warm Season Rainfall Forecasts , 2006 .

[2]  E. Mlawer,et al.  Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the longwave , 1997 .

[3]  E. Kessler.  On the distribution and continuity of water substance in atmospheric circulations , 1969 .

[4]  Steven E. Koch,et al.  The Impact of Different WRF Model Physical Parameterizations and Their Interactions on Warm Season MCS Rainfall , 2005 .

[5]  A. Pathirana,et al.  Simulating orographic rainfall with a limited-area, non-hydrostatic atmospheric model under idealized forcing , 2004 .

[6]  Alon Rimmer,et al.  Using the WRF Model in an Operational Streamflow Forecast System for the Jordan River , 2011 .

[7]  Shu‐Hua Chen,et al.  Orographic effects on a conditionally unstable flow over an idealized three-dimensional mesoscale mountain , 2005 .

[8]  Huiling Yuan,et al.  Evaluation and Comparison of Microphysical Algorithms in ARW-WRF Model Simulations of Atmospheric River Events Affecting the California Coast , 2009 .

[9]  Valérie Dulière,et al.  Evaluation of WRF and HadRM Mesoscale Climate Simulations over the U.S. Pacific Northwest , 2009 .

[10]  C. Schär,et al.  The global energy balance from a surface perspective , 2013, Climate Dynamics.

[11]  G. Kiladis,et al.  Convectively coupled Kelvin and easterly waves in a regional climate simulation of the tropics , 2011 .

[12]  Christian Mätzler,et al.  A complete long-term series of integrated water vapour from ground-based microwave radiometers , 2011 .

[13]  Andreas Gobiet,et al.  Parameterization-Induced Error Characteristics of MM5 and WRF Operated in Climate Mode over the Alpine Region: An Ensemble-Based Analysis , 2011 .

[14]  J. Dudhia.  Numerical Study of Convection Observed during the Winter Monsoon Experiment Using a Mesoscale Two-Dimensional Model , 1989 .

[15]  R. Rotunno,et al.  Further Results on Moist Nearly Neutral Flow over a Ridge , 2006 .

[16]  A. Sairouní,et al.  Results of the meteorological model WRF-ARW over Catalonia, using different parameterizations of convection and cloud microphysics , 2010 .

[17]  L. Druyan,et al.  Regional climate model simulation of the AMMA Special Observing Period #3 and the pre-Helene easterly wave , 2009 .

[18]  Jimy Dudhia,et al.  Regional Climate–Weather Research and Forecasting Model , 2012 .

[19]  Moustafa T. Chahine,et al.  The hydrological cycle and its influence on climate , 1992, Nature.

[20]  Govindasamy Bala,et al.  Evaluation of a WRF dynamical downscaling simulation over California , 2008 .

[21]  T. Lane,et al.  Sensitivities of Orographic Precipitation to Terrain Geometry and Upstream Conditions in Idealized Simulations , 2012 .

[22]  H. D. Orville,et al.  Bulk Parameterization of the Snow Field in a Cloud Model , 1983 .

[23]  R. Rotunno,et al.  Simulations of moist nearly neutral flow over a ridge , 2005 .

[24]  G. Powers,et al.  A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Version 3 , 2008 .

[25]  J. Otkin,et al.  Comparison of WRF Model-Simulated and MODIS-Derived Cloud Data , 2008 .

[26]  Omar Bellprat,et al.  Objective calibration of regional climate models: OBJECTIVE CALIBRATION OF RCMS , 2012 .

[27]  Jimy Dudhia,et al.  Evaluation of WRF Parameterizations for Climate Studies over Southern Spain Using a Multistep Regionalization , 2011 .