Transcript Document
CloudNET: evaluating the clouds in seven operational forecast models Anthony Illingworth, Robin Hogan , Ewan O’Connor, U of Reading, UK Nicolas Gaussiat Damian Wilson, Malcolm Brooks Met Office, UK Dominique Bouniol, Alain Protat Martial Haeffelin, CETP, France David Donovan, Gerd-Jan Zadelhoff, Henk Klein-Baltink KNMI, NL Adrian Tomkins, ECMWF, Charles Wrench, RAL Herman Russchenberg, Oleg Krasnov TUD, NL Jean-M Piriou Meteo France Pekka Ravilla, Vaisala, Finland. et al. The EU CloudNet project Since April 2001 www.met.rdg.ac.uk/radar/cloudnet www.cloud-net.org • Aim: to retrieve continuously the crucial cloud parameters for climate and forecast models – Three sites: Chilbolton (UK) Cabauw (NL) and Palaiseau (F) – + recently Lindenberg (D) and ARM sites (USA & Pacific) • To evaluate a number of operational models – Met Office (mesoscale and global versions) – ECMWF - Météo-France (Arpege) – KNMI (Racmo and Hirlam) – + recently: DWD Lokal Model and SMHI RCA model • Crucial aspects – Report retrieval errors and data quality flags – Use common formats based around NetCDF allow all algorithms to be applied at all sites and compared to all models COULD USE THE APPROACH FOR CLOUDSAT/CALIPSO GLOBAL DATA The three original CloudNET sites Cabauw, The Netherlands 1.2-GHz wind profiler + RASS (KNMI) 3.3-GHz FM-CW radar TARA (TUD) 35-GHz cloud radar (KNMI) 1064/532-nm lidar (RIVM) 905 nm lidar ceilometer (KNMI) 22-channel MICCY radiometer (Bonn) IR radiometer (KNMI) Chilbolton, UK 3-GHz Doppler/polarisation radar (CAMRa) 94-GHz Doppler cloud radar (Galileo) 35-GHz Doppler cloud radar (Copernicus) 905-nm lidar ceilometer 355-nm UV lidar 22.2/28.8 GHz dual frequency radiometer • Core instrumentation at each site SIRTA, Palaiseau (Paris), France 5-GHz Doppler Radar (Ronsard) 94-GHz Doppler Radar (Rasta) 1064/532 nm polarimetric lidar 10.6 µm Scanning Doppler Lidar 24/37-GHz radiometer (DRAKKAR) 23.8/31.7-GHz radiometer (RESCOM) – Radar, lidar, microwave radiometers, raingauge Cloud Parameterisation • Operational models currently in each grid box typically two prognostic cloud variables: – Prognostic liquid water/vapour content – Prognostic ice water content (IWC) OR diagnose from T – Prognostic cloud fraction OR diagnosed from total water PDF • Particle size is prescribed: – Cloud droplets - different for marine/continental – Ice particles – size decreases with temperature – Terminal velocity is a function of ice water content • Sub-grid scale effects: – Overlap is assumed to be maximum-random – What about cloud inhomogeneity? How can we evaluate & hence improve model clouds? Standard CloudNET observations (e.g. Chilbolton) Radar Lidar, gauge, radiometers But can the average user make sense of these measurements? Target categorization • Combining radar, lidar and model allows the type of cloud (or other target) to be identified • From this can calculate cloud fraction in each model gridbox Cloud fraction Observations OCTOBER 2003 Met Office Mesoscale Model ECMWF Global Model Meteo-France ARPEGE Model KNMI Regional Atmospheric Climate Model What happened to the MeteoFrance Arpege model on 18 April 2003? Modification of cloud scheme – cloud fraction and water content now diagnosed from total water content. Evaluation of Meteo-France ‘Arpege’ total cloud cover using conventional synoptic observations. More rms Error Worse Bias 2000 2005 2000 2005 Changes to cloud scheme in 2003-2005 seem to have made performance worse! CloudNET: monthly profiles of mean cloud fraction and pdf of values of cloud fraction v model Jan 2003 Jan 2005 Objective CloudNET analysis shows a remarkable improvement in model clouds. Equitable threat scores for cloud fraction • Scores for cloud fraction > 0.05 over Cabauw for seven models together with persistence and climatology. Skill versus forecast lead time • Met Office best over Chilbolton • DWD best over Lindenberg. ARM SITES NOW BEING PROCESSED VIA CLOUDNET SYSTEM MANUS ARM SITE IN W PACIFIC. CLOUD FRACTION CEILOMETER ONLY: HIGH CIRRUS IS OBSERVED BY MPL LIDAR: NOT YET CORRECT IN CLOUDNET TROPICAL CONVECTION: MANUS ARM SITE IN W PACIFIC. CLOUD FRACTION OBSERVED – HIGH CIRRUS NOT YET CORRECT IN CLOUDNET ECMWF MODEL MODEL CONVECTION SCHEME CONTINUALLY TRIGGERING - GIVES V LOW CLOUD FRACTION IN TOO MANY BOXES. TODAY’S TIMETABLE • CLOUD OBSERVING STATIONS. • RETRIEVAL ALGORITHMS • Lunch • COMPARISON WITH THE OPERATIONAL MODELS. • MODELLER’S PERSPECTIVE AND GENERAL DISCUSSION. • SPECIFICATION FOR A CLOUD OBSERVING STATION.