<br />.......
<br />
<br />;.
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />.a:..,.o
<br />
<br />COMPARISONS OF CLOUD MODEL PREDICTIONS:
<br />A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS OF ONE- AND TWO-DIMENSIONAL MODELS
<br />
<br />By
<br />
<br />r
<br />
<br />B. A. Silverman, D. A. Matthews, L. D. Nelson
<br />Bureau of Reclamation
<br />Division of Atmospheric Water Resources Management
<br />Denver, Colorado
<br />
<br />And
<br />
<br />H. D. Orville, F. J. Kopp, R. D. Farley
<br />South Dakota School of Mines and Technology
<br />Rapid City, South Dakota
<br />
<br />1.
<br />
<br />INTRODUCTION
<br />
<br />One measure of our understanding of
<br />cloud and precipitation processes is our ability
<br />to simulate the essential features of their
<br />behavior through numerical cloud models. Nodel
<br />development will progress most rapidly when
<br />modelers and observationalists interact iteratively
<br />with feedback from one to the other in a mutually
<br />supportive fashion. Unfortunately, this approach
<br />has been only seldom followed.
<br />
<br />, A convective cloud modeling workshop
<br />was convened by the Bureau of Reclamation's
<br />Division of Atmospheric Water Resources ~~nagement
<br />in Denver, Colorado, on June 11-13, 1975. The
<br />main objective of this workshop was to design a
<br />specific and continuing effort to close the gap
<br />between models and observations and thereby
<br />maximize the utility of models to contribute to
<br />our understanding of natural and artificially
<br />modified convective clouds. The workshop focused
<br />its discussions on (1) model initialization data
<br />requirements; (2) model verification data require-
<br />ments, including the method or methods by which
<br />model predictions can be bime-synchronized with
<br />observations of cloud development; and (3) objec-
<br />tive model verification criteria.
<br />
<br />To lay the foundation for these
<br />discussions, each participating modeler presented
<br />the results of his model for two standard input
<br />data sets, which were sent to him beforehand. The
<br />models were compared first to each other and then
<br />against such verification data as were available,
<br />which were first presented to the modelers at the
<br />workshop.
<br />
<br />Twenty-two scientists representing
<br />several universities, Government agencies, and
<br />industrial groups participated in the workshop.
<br />Results from three one-dimensional, steady-state
<br />models (lD, SS), five one-dimensional, time-
<br />dependent models (lD, TD), four two-dimensional,
<br />time-dependent, axi-symmetric models (2D, TD,
<br />Axi), and two two-dimensional, time-dependent,
<br />slab-symmetric models (2D, TD, SLAB) were
<br />presented.
<br />
<br />The purpose of this paper is to
<br />summarize the results of this workshop and indicate
<br />what follow-on work is planned or in progress.
<br />
<br />----
<br />
<br />--::~__L _~_L
<br />
<br />2.
<br />
<br />MODEL PREDICTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
<br />
<br />Data used in the workshop were
<br />collected on August 10 and 17, 1973, in the
<br />vicinity of St. Louis as part of Project Metromex.
<br />They were graciously provided by Dr. Bernice
<br />Ackerman of the Illinois State Water Survey, who
<br />also participated in the workshop. Input rawin-
<br />sonde soundings and supporting data that were used
<br />to initialize the models are shown in figures 1
<br />and 2 and table 1, respectively.
<br />
<br />It can be seen from figures 1 and 2
<br />that the sounding for August 10 was quite unstable
<br />while that for August 17 was not so unstable.
<br />This resulted, as we shall see later, in the
<br />development of clouds with different growth and
<br />precipitation characteristics, which is the reason
<br />,why these 2 days were selected for the workshop cases.
<br />Since the input and verification data sets were
<br />limited, we were anxious to see if the model
<br />predictions could at least distinguish the nature
<br />of the convective activity on these 2 days.
<br />
<br />/
<br />
<br />,o~. ,'Of::.' ,tb~' ,,,ft;)' }b~' /,f::!>' ,oJf:"
<br />100, '
<br />~ .J.Jo "s. ".s ~/'-t~ -t~ ~' s.<,: ~,... ~ s..t, ~.s.!
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />:~f:::I'
<br />
<br />
<br />,,'
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />, '. / ". /:... . X. .< j..../, '. ,/ ,'. / ".
<br />
<br />;,i~?$?~~~~~~~~0 ,.
<br />
<br />
<br />1000.
<br />
<br />STLSt 0
<br />INrTlAL SOUNDING AT 13 HR 0 HIN
<br />
<br />Figur>e Z. Skew-T, Log-P thermodynamic d-iagram
<br />showing initial sounding temperature and dewpoint
<br />profiles for st. Louis, Mo., on August ZO, 1973,
<br />at l300 L.S.T.
<br />
<br />"T!'
<br />
|