z-logo
Premium
Macroscopic cloud properties in the WRF NWP model: An assessment using sky camera and ceilometer data
Author(s) -
ArbizuBarrena Clara,
PozoVázquez David,
RuizArias José A.,
TovarPescador Joaquín
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: atmospheres
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2169-8996
pISSN - 2169-897X
DOI - 10.1002/2015jd023502
Subject(s) - ceilometer , weather research and forecasting model , cloud fraction , meteorology , cloud cover , cloud computing , environmental science , cloud top , cloud height , cloud albedo , atmospheric sciences , geography , physics , computer science , aerosol , operating system
The ability of six microphysical parameterizations included in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) numerical weather prediction (NWP) model to represent various macroscopic cloud characteristics at multiple spatial and temporal resolutions is investigated. In particular, the model prediction skills of cloud occurrence, cloud base height, and cloud cover are assessed. When it is possible, the results are provided separately for low‐, middle‐, and high‐level clouds. The microphysical parameterizations assessed are WRF single‐moment six‐class, Thompson, Milbrandt‐Yau, Morrison, Stony Brook University, and National Severe Storms Laboratory double moment. The evaluated macroscopic cloud properties are determined based on the model cloud fractions. Two cloud fraction approaches, namely, a binary cloud fraction and a continuous cloud fraction, are investigated. Model cloud cover is determined by overlapping the vertically distributed cloud fractions following three different strategies. The evaluation is conducted based on observations gathered with a ceilometer and a sky camera located in Jaén (southern Spain). The results prove that the reliability of the WRF model mostly depends on the considered cloud parameter, cloud level, and spatiotemporal resolution. In our test bed, it is found that WRF model tends to (i) overpredict the occurrence of high‐level clouds irrespectively of the spatial resolution, (ii) underestimate the cloud base height, and (iii) overestimate the cloud cover. Overall, the best cloud estimates are found for finer spatial resolutions (1.3 and 4 km with slight differences between them) and coarser temporal resolutions. The roles of the parameterization choice of the microphysics scheme and the cloud overlapping strategy are, in general, less relevant.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here