English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

. The representation of cloud microphysical processes contributes substantiallyto the uncertainty of numerical weather simulations. In part, this is owed tosome fundamental knowledge gaps in the underlying processes due to thedifficulty of observing them directly. On the path to closing these gaps, we presenta setup for the systematic characterization of differences between numericalweather model and radar observations for convective weather situations. Radarobservations are introduced which provide targeted dual-wavelength andpolarimetric measurements of convective clouds with the potential to providemore detailed information about hydrometeor shapes and sizes. A convection-permitting regional weather model setup is established using five differentmicrophysics schemes (double-moment, spectral bin (“Fast Spectral BinMicrophysics”, FSBM), and particle propertyprediction (P3)). Observations are compared to hindcasts which are created witha polarimetric radar forward simulator for all measurement days. Acell-tracking algorithm applied to radar and model data facilitates comparisonon acell object basis. Statistical comparisons of radar observations and numericalweather model runs are presented on a data set of 30 convection days. Ingeneral, simulations show too few weak and small-scale convective cells.Contoured frequency by altitude diagrams of radar signatures reveal deviationsbetween the schemes and observations in ice and liquid phase. Apart from the P3scheme, high reflectivities in the ice phase are simulated too frequently.Dual-wavelengthsignatures demonstrate issues of most schemes to correctly represent iceparticle size distributions, producing too large or too dense graupel particles.Comparison of polarimetric radar signatures reveals issues of all schemes exceptthe FSBM to correctly represent rain particle size distributions.

atmospheric measurement techniques

Evaluation of convective cloud microphysics in numerical weather prediction models with dual-wavelength polarimetric radar observations: methods and examples