Comparison of COSMO-CLM results with CM-SAF data. Andreas Will and Michael Woldt (BTU Cottbus)

Similar documents
Evaluation of Climate Simulations

The overall output data format of the CLM regional model is netcdf.

The Arctic Energy Budget

Regional Climate Modelling in Europe:

Meteorology. Circle the letter that corresponds to the correct answer

The role of soil moisture in influencing climate and terrestrial ecosystem processes

Evaluation of a New Land Surface Model for JMA-GSM

Characterization of the Present-Day Arctic Atmosphere in CCSM4

The skill of ECMWF cloudiness forecasts

A Concept to Assess the Performance. with a Climate Model

Evaluation of COSMO-CLM Simulations

Introduction to Climate ~ Part I ~

Evaluating Parametrizations using CEOP

Overview 1. CLM-Community 2. Climate and NWP mode 3. Introduction: Model and Reality 4. Uncertainties and limits of predictability

A perturbed physics ensemble climate modeling. requirements of energy and water cycle. Yong Hu and Bruce Wielicki

Energy Systems, Structures and Processes Essential Standard: Analyze patterns of global climate change over time Learning Objective: Differentiate

Update on the KENDA project

Spatiotemporal variations of alpine climate, snow cover and phenology

Added Value of Convection Resolving Climate Simulations (CRCS)

Lecture 8. Monsoons and the seasonal variation of tropical circulation and rainfall

Coupling Climate to Clouds, Precipitation and Snow

COUPLING A DISTRIBUTED HYDROLOGICAL MODEL TO REGIONAL CLIMATE MODEL OUTPUT: AN EVALUATION OF EXPERIMENTS FOR THE RHINE BASIN IN EUROPE

Evaluation of a MODIS Triangle-based Algorithm for Improving ET Estimates in the Northern Sierra Nevada Mountain Range

Characterization of the solar irradiation field for the Trentino region in the Alps

Implementation and validation of the. ECMWF IFS convection scheme. in COSMO-CLM. Peter Brockhaus. Daniel Lüthi. Christoph Schär

Outline: 1) Extremes were triggered by anomalous synoptic patterns 2) Cloud-Radiation-PWV positive feedback on 2007 low SIE

Lecture 7: The Monash Simple Climate

Arctic Climate Change. Glen Lesins Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science Dalhousie University Create Summer School, Alliston, July 2013

Assessment of the Noah LSM with Multi-parameterization Options (Noah-MP) within WRF

5) The amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of a substance by 1 C is called: Page Ref: 69

Meteorology. Chapter 15 Worksheet 1

Monitoring daily evapotranspiration in the Alps exploiting Sentinel-2 and meteorological data

The Cryosphere Radiative Effect in CESM. Justin Perket Mark Flanner CESM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting Wednesday June 19, 2013

General Circulation. Nili Harnik DEES, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Nordic weather extremes as simulated by the Rossby Centre Regional Climate Model: model evaluation and future projections

Interhemispheric climate connections: What can the atmosphere do?

Changes in Earth s Albedo Measured by satellite

Convection-Resolving Model Simulations: Process-Based Comparison of LM Results with Observations

Land-cloud-climate Coupling on the Canadian Prairies

Terrestrial Snow Cover: Properties, Trends, and Feedbacks. Chris Derksen Climate Research Division, ECCC

Constraining Model Predictions of Arctic Sea Ice With Observations. Chris Ander 27 April 2010 Atmos 6030

Solar Insolation and Earth Radiation Budget Measurements

Seasonal & Diurnal Temp Variations. Earth-Sun Distance. Eccentricity 2/2/2010. ATS351 Lecture 3

Romanian Contribution in Quantitative Precipitation Forecasts Project

Atmospheric Boundary Layer over Land, Ocean, and Ice. Xubin Zeng, Michael Brunke, Josh Welty, Patrick Broxton University of Arizona

Torben Königk Rossby Centre/ SMHI

Which graph best shows the relationship between intensity of insolation and position on the Earth's surface? A) B) C) D)

Recent developments in severe weather forecasting at the DWD

Radiative Climatology of the North Slope of Alaska and the Adjacent Arctic Ocean

Modelling and Data Assimilation Needs for improving the representation of Cold Processes at ECMWF

RR#5 - Free Response

5. General Circulation Models

Coupling of Diurnal Climate to Clouds, Land-use and Snow

Understanding the Greenhouse Effect

Cloud parameterization and cloud prediction scheme in Eta numerical weather model

Application and verification of ECMWF products 2014

Exploration of California High Resolution Snowpack Modeling with Realistic Surface-Atmospheric Radiation Physics

Comparison of cloud statistics from Meteosat with regional climate model data

Snowcover interaction with climate, topography & vegetation in mountain catchments

Verification of different wind gust parametrizations Overview of verification results at MeteoSwiss in the year 2012

WG1 Overview. PP KENDA for km-scale EPS: LETKF. current DA method: nudging. radar reflectivity (precip): latent heat nudging 1DVar (comparison)

Application and verification of the ECMWF products Report 2007

ATM S 111, Global Warming Climate Models

The retrieval of the atmospheric humidity parameters from NOAA/AMSU data for winter season.

World Geography Chapter 3

forest tropical jungle swamp marsh prairie savanna pampas Different Ecosystems (rainforest)

Seasons, Global Wind and Climate Study Guide

Interannual variability of top-ofatmosphere. CERES instruments

SATELLITE OBSERVATIONS OF CLOUD RADIATIVE FORCING FOR THE AFRICAN TROPICAL CONVECTIVE REGION

and their applications in Africa

Comparison of meteorological data from different sources for Bishkek city, Kyrgyzstan

Land Surface: Snow Emanuel Dutra

Topic # 11 HOW CLIMATE WORKS continued (Part II) pp in Class Notes

Regional dry-season climate changes due to three decades of Amazonian deforestation

Soil Moisture Prediction and Assimilation

Seeking a consistent view of energy and water flows through the climate system

Lecture 4 Air Temperature. Measuring Temperature. Measuring Temperature. Surface & Air Temperature. Environmental Contrasts 3/27/2012

Earth s Heat Budget. What causes the seasons? Seasons

Faisal S. Syed, Shahbaz M.,Nadia R.,Siraj I. K., M. Adnan Abid, M. Ashfaq, F. Giorgi, J. Pal, X. Bi

Boundary layer equilibrium [2005] over tropical oceans

Grant Agreement No.: SafeLand. Living with landslide risk in Europe: Assessment, effects of global change, and risk management strategies

Tropical Moist Rainforest

Influence of clouds on radiative fluxes in the Arctic. J. English, J. Kay, A. Gettelman CESM Workshop / PCWG Meeting June 20, 2012

Global Climates. Name Date

Agricultural Science Climatology Semester 2, Anne Green / Richard Thompson

Understanding land-surfaceatmosphere. observations and models

What is Climate? Understanding and predicting climatic changes are the basic goals of climatology.

Application and verification of ECMWF products 2017

Lecture Outlines PowerPoint. Chapter 16 Earth Science 11e Tarbuck/Lutgens

7.5-year global trends in GOME cloud cover and humidity - a signal of climate change? Institut für Umweltphysik, Uni-Heidelberg, Germany

A R C T E X Results of the Arctic Turbulence Experiments Long-term Monitoring of Heat Fluxes at a high Arctic Permafrost Site in Svalbard

BMKG Research on Air sea interaction modeling for YMC

P1.34 MULTISEASONALVALIDATION OF GOES-BASED INSOLATION ESTIMATES. Jason A. Otkin*, Martha C. Anderson*, and John R. Mecikalski #

Convection Permitting Simulation of Extreme Precipitation Events Lessons Learned

Glacier (and ice sheet) Mass Balance

Using kilometric-resolution meteorological forecasts and satellite-derived incoming radiations for snowpack modelling in complex terrain

The PRECIS Regional Climate Model

Water Balance in the Murray-Darling Basin and the recent drought as modelled with WRF

Climate and tourism potential in Freiburg

Transcription:

Comparison of COSMO-CLM results with CM-SAF data Andreas Will and Michael Woldt (BTU Cottbus)

Configuration CCLM-GME Boundary conditions: GME 60/40km, ke=40 1.2001-12.2007, DWD soil-vegetation data Models: CCLM-grid: Dynamics: Physics: int2lm_1.7.2_clm_1, cosmo_4.2_clm_1 Δx= Δy=0.167, 193x217, ke=40, 10 soil levels, z(10)=15,34 m 3 rd order RK p T, 5 th order hor. adv., impl. vert. adv., 208km lateral boundary zone, dyn. bottom bc Tiedtke conv.; prognostic precipitation, cloud water and ice; TKE-scheme

Selected regions Water (WAS) Land (LND) South-West-Europe (SWE) Scandinavia (SCA) and also Germany (DTL) Alpine Region (ALP) NEW NEL SEL SEL SEW NSK SSK ALP UNG POE NOA NEE SCA OSS NWE NOS MEU EEU RUS BIS SWE SEU SWM VAS NAF MED WAS LND SLW DTL ESS LIN SAX STU MEI MUN

CMSAF and COSMO variables Variable long name Acronym CCLM CM-SAF CM-SAF-Accuracy 1. TOA TOA down SW ASODT TIS 1W/m2 TOA up SW ASOU_T TRS 10W/m2 *TOA net SW ASOB_T TES 0.12 % TOA net LW ATHB_T -TET 0.06 % *TOA net radiation ANRB_T TER 15W/m2 2. VERTICALLY INTEGRATED HUMIDITY AND CLOUD PROPERTIES Total cloud cover CLCT CFC 0.10 % LND 0.15 % WAS Cloud top height HTOP_CON CTH 1000m Vertic. integr. water vapor TQV HTW_TPW 1mm 3. NEAR SURFACE surface down SW ASWG_S SIS 10W/m2 surface albedo ALB_RAD SAL 0.25 % surface up SW ASWDIFU_S SRS 10W/m2 surface net SW ASOB_S SNS 15W/m2 surface down LW ALWD_S SDL 10W/m2 surface up LW ALWU_S SOL 10W/m2 surface net LW ATHB_S SNL 15W/m2 *surface net radiation ANRB_S SRB 21W/m2 4. METEOROLOGICAL NEAR SURFACE VARIABLES ECAD Ref. 2 meter Temperature T_2M T2M Total Precipitation TOT_PREC PRECIP

Basis of the study Comparisons of absolute values and differences between model results (GME008, GME010) and between model results and SAF products for annual means, monthly means and annual cycles of spatial averages for 35 selected regions and the year 2006. Accuracy of SAF data: Bias and RMSE of monthly means. Derived from - Comparison with GUAN global radiosond network Other verifications (see validation report for each product)

Structures of occuring bias in COSMO variables land-sea contrast, spatial structure defined by a typical local climate, seasonal structure, cloud free to cloudy contrast model domain boundary symmetry. in SAF-variables North-South contrast, annual cycle, land-sea contrast, day-night contrast and/or cloud free to cloudy contrast

1. Radiation 1.4 ToA net LW, 2005-2006 CCLM: ATHB_T SAF: TNT=-TET, Satellite Δs = ± 8 W (month)

1.4 ToA net LW, AVE 2005-2006, Δs = ± 2 W CCLM SAF 120

1.4 ToA net LW, AVE 2005-2006 CCLM SAF, Δs = ± 2 W

1.4 ToA net LW, AVE 2005-2006 CCLM SAF, Δs = ± 7 W Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct.

1.4 ToA net LW, AVE 2005, 2006, 2005-2006 CCLM SAF, Δs = ± 10 W LND WAT SWE SCA

1.4 ToA net LW, AVE 2006, Data-CCLM, Δs = ± 10 W LND WAT SWE SCA

1.4 TOA net LW, 2006 Summary - ToA outgoing LW is downward positive -Annual Means the mean deviations over WAS ( 7.6W), over SWE ( 6.9W) and over MED ( 10.6W) are strongly significant. A strongly significant gradient of the deviations can be found perpendicular to the boundaries. At the inflow boundaries the gradient is much weaker indicating a strong effect of the inflow conditions on the formation of clouds, especially over water surfaces. The land-sea contrast is also different in CMSAF and GME008. It can be seen from the significant difference MED-SWE, which is about 9W for TET and 12.5W for ATHB_T - Monthly means significant negative deviation of 16.1W over WAS and 6.9W over LND. in July positive deviations dominate with significant values of 9.4W over SCA. annual cycle of 10W over LND, 13W overwas, 23W over SCA and no annual cycle over SWE. - Hypothesis: underestimation of convection over WAS or bias in CMSAF data

2. Clouds 2.1 Total Cloud Cover CCLM: CLCT SAF: CFC, Satellite over land: Δs = ± 0,05 (month) over oceans: Δs = ± 0,09 (month)

2.1 Total Cloud Cover, AVE 2006, Δs = ± 0,014 (0,026) CCLM SAF 150

2.1 Total Cloud Cover, AVE 2006 CCLM SAF, Δs = ± 0,014 (0,026)

2.1 Total Cloud Cover, AVE 2006 CCLM SAF150, Δs = ± 0,05 (0,09) Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct.

2.1 Total Cloud Cover, Δs = ± 0,05 (0,09) DATA-CCLM, 2006 LND WAT SWE SCA

2.1 Total Cloud Cover, 2006 Summary - Annual mean positive differences over SCA (0.16) negative differences over MED ( 0.20) and over WAS ( 0.13) strong land-sea contrast in the CFC data due to significantly higher CFC over WAS (0.75) in comparison to CLCT over WAS (0.59), strongly significant negative peak bias at the boundaries of up to 0.35 for the differences with influence on the differences within the model domain and significant differences between the CMSAF data of 0.07 over WAS and LND points. - Monthly mean the summer positive difference pattern of 0.25 over SCA and 0.13 over central Europe (MEU and EEU) the winter negative differences over WAS of 0.32 no decrease of CLCT in spring to summer in GME008 hypothesis: possible CMSAF bias or underestimated model convection.

2. Clouds 2.2 Convective Cloud Top Height CCLM: HTOP_CON SAF: CTH, GME-model Δs = ± 1000m (month)

2.2 Convective Cloud Top Height, AVE 2006, Δs = ± 300 m CCLM SAF 150

2.2 Convective Cloud Top Height, AVE 2006, CCLM SAF150, Δs = ± 300 m

2.2 Convective Cloud Top Height, AVE 2006, CCLM SAF150, Δs = ± 1000 m Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct.

2.2 Convective Cloud Top Height, CCLM, SAF 2006 Δs = ± 1000 m LND WAT SWE SCA

2.2 Convective Cloud Top Height, DATA-CCLM, 2006 Δs = ± 1000m LND WAT SWE SCA

2.2 Convective Cloud Top Height, 2006 Summary - Annual mean negative values over NEL, NEW ( 1500) and significant differences between the CMSAF data SAF150 and SAF210 for most of the regions (SAF210 SAF150 1000m). -Monthly mean - The differences CCLM-SAF have an annual cycle of nearly 1000m to 2000m for all land regions with higher deviations in winter. - The criteria of cloud top height in SAF and in the model have to be compared in detail with each other before drawing conclusions.

2. Clouds 2.3 Vertically Integrated Water Vapor CCLM: IWV SAF: HTW, Satellite Δs = ± 1 mm (month)

2.3 Vertically Integrated Water Vapor, AVE 2006, Δs = ± 0,3 kg/m2 CCLM SAF H30

2.3 Vertically Integrated Water Vapor, AVE 2006, CCLM SAFH30, Δs = ± 0,3 kg/m2

2.3 Vertically Integrated Water Vapor, AVE 2006, CCLM SAFH30, Δs = ± 1 kg/m2 Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct.

2.3 Vertically Integrated Water Vapor, DATA-CCLM, 2006 Δs = ± 1 kg/m2 LND WAT SWE SCA

2.3 Vertically Integrated Water Vapor, 2006 Summary - Annual mean strongly significant positive differences in POE (0.93), negative differences over southern Europe with up to 2.01 over SUE strong decrease of TQV in the model over land with 20.65 mm over MED and 16.42 mm over SUE in comparison with 20.92 mm and 18.42 mm for HTW. clear fingerprint of topography in the differences TQV HTW. Over the mountains in southern Europe the model exhibits maximal negative deviations indicating an overestimation of convection. Monthly mean winter negative difference pattern of 1.23 over WAS and 2.34 over SCA summer negative differences 2.84 over southern Europe summer positive difference 2.64 over the POE region

2. Vertical profiles 2.1 Temperature, 2006 CCLM: SAFH30: T(p), QV(p) HLW_T, HLW_LPW Δs = 1 K, 1.5 mm

T (p) SWE RELHUM(p) 250 600 925

T (p) MEU RELHUM(p) 250 600 925

T (p) SCA RELHUM(p) 250 600 925

T, RELHUM, layers, 2006 Summary - Annual mean - T and RELHUM exhibit no significant differences - Monthly mean - The temperature differences remain below 2K - The main part of the differences in RELHUM can be explained by the temperature differences

3. Radiation at the Surface 3.2 Surface Albedo, 2006 CCLM: ALB_RAD SAF: SAL (210 and 150) Satellites and GME δs = 0.25 (month) Δs = 0.04 (month)

3.2 Surface Albedo (60 ), AVE 2006, Δs = 0.08 CCLM SAF 150

3.2 Surface Albedo, AVE 2006 CCLM SAF150, Δs = 0.08

3.2 Surface Albedo, AVE 2006 CCLM SAF150, Δs = 0.25 Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct.

3.2 Surface Albedo, 2006, CCLM, SAF Δs = 0.25 LND ALP SWE SCA

3.2 Surface Albedo, 2006, DATA-CCLM Δs = 0.25 LND ALP SWE SCA

3.2 Surface albedo, 2006 Summary - Annual mean - Available SAF data coverage not sufficient for most parts of the model domain - In the Alpine region (ALP) the model exhibits higher values (0.1). - Monthly means - For ALP higher values in snow-months up to 0.3 in the model. Similar result for SCA and other snow-covered regions. This might be caused by missing evergreen forest in the simulation. - Differences between SAF150 and SAF210 approx. 0.1, which is similar to the differences CCLM-SAF for most regions. - The precision of 0.25 is very low.

3. Radiation at the Surface 3.3 Surface outgoing SW, 2006 CCLM: ASWDIFU_S SAF: SIS-SNS (210 and 150) Satellites and GME Δs = ± 18 W (month)

3.3 Surface outgoing SW, AVE 2006, Δs = ± 5 W CCLM SAF 210

3.3 Surface outgoing SW, AVE 2006 CCLM SAF210, Δs = ± 5W

3.3 Surface outgoing SW, AVE 2006 CCLM SAF210, Δs = ± 18 W Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct.

3.3 Surface outgoing SW, AVE 2006, CCLM, SAF Δs = ± 18 W LND WAT SWE SCA

3.3 Surface outgoing SW, AVE 2006, Data-CCLM Δs = ± 18 W LND WAT SWE SCA

3.3 Surface outgoing SW, 2006 Summary - Annual mean - Over land and water significantly lower values (8 W) in the model. - Monthly means - SAF-Data available for all regions and months, although the albedo is not. - Difference in SCA in April highest

3. Radiation at the Surface 3.5 Surface down LW, 2006 CCLM: ALWD_S SAF: SDL (210 and 150) Satellite and GME Δs = ± 10 W

3.5 Surface down LW AVE 2006, Δs = ± 3 W CCLM SAF 210

3.5 Surface down LW, AVE 2006 CCLM SAF210, Δs = ± 3 W

3.5 Surface down LW, AVE 2006 CCLM SAF210, Δs = ± 10 W Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct.

3.5 Surface down LW, AVE 2006, CCLM SAF Δs = ± 10 W LND WAT SWE SCA

3.5 Surface down LW, 2006 Summary - Annual means - Lower incoming LW radiation in the model in the boundary zone due to reduced cloud cover. -Monthly means - Tendency to higher incoming LW radiation in the model over Scandinavia (10W), especially in the autumn.

3. Radiation at the Surface 3.6 Surface up LW, 2006 CCLM: ALWU_S SAF: SOL (210 and 150) GME Δs = ± 10 W, GME

3.6 Surface up LW, AVE 2006, Δs =?? W CCLM SAF 210

3.6 Surface up LW, AVE 2006 CCLM SAF210, Δs =?? W

3.6 Surface up LW, AVE 2006 CCLM SAF210, Δs =?? W Jan. Apr. Jul. Oct.

3.6 Surface up LW, AVE 2006, CCLM SAF Δs = ± 10 W LND WAT SWE SCA

3.6 Surface up LW, AVE 2006, CCLM SAF Δs = ± 10 W LND WAT SWE SCA

3.6 Surface up LW, 2006 Summary -Monthly mean - Significantly lower summer temperatures over Scandinavia and central Europe in the CCLM in comparison to GME

Summary: Suggestions on possible causes of the deviations 1. model deficiencies Boundary conditions inconsistent with cloud conditions in the model Overestimation of CLCT in the model over central to northern Europe of up to 0.5 in May to September Overestimation of the model surface albedo in regions covered by snow Underestimation of deep convection over water surfaces or CMSAF data bias over land or different criteria in model and CMSAF data Overestimation of formation of clouds cold bias of the model coming from the GME summer cold bias of GME008 configuration 2. CMSAF data distinctive features: higher north-south gradient in SIS than in ASOD_S in January Inconsistent land-sea contrast in CMSAF data in CLC and TRS strong land-sea contrast in SDL See the report for further details