Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SEPTEMBER 1981 <br /> <br />977 <br /> <br />DAVID A. MATTHEWS <br /> <br /> <br />TABLE 4. Sample means for different cloud types observed in Miles City, Montana.in 1976-77 during days <br />for which satellite population statistics of convective clouds were available. <br /> <br />Variable <br /> <br />Group I mean <br />Cumulus <br /> <br />Group 2 mean <br />Cumulonimbus <br /> <br />P-value* <br /> <br />Sample size <br /> <br />n = 28 <br /> <br />n = 9 <br /> <br />Cloud-base temperature (oC) <br />Surface convective temperature <br />Mean lapse rate for layer 100-150 mb AGL roC (100 m)-I] <br />Mean lapse rate for layer 150-200 mb AGL roC (100 m)-I] <br />Mean mixing ratio for layer Sfc-50 mb AGL (g kg-I) <br />Mean mixing ratio for layer Sfc-100 mb AGL (g kg-I) <br />Natural cloud depth for 0.5 km initial radius (km) <br />Cloud-top temperature for 0.5 km initial radius (oC) <br />Cloud-top height for 0.5 km initial radius (km MSL) <br />Natural cloud depth for 1.0 km initial radius (km) <br />Cloud:top temperature for 1.0 km initial radius eC) <br />Total supercooled water content for 1.0 km initial radius (g kg-I) <br />Natural cloud depth** for 1.5 km initial radius (km) <br />Cloud-top. temperature** for 1.5 km initial radius eC) <br />, Total supercooled water content** for 1.5km initial radius (g kg-I) <br />Natural cloud depth for 10.0 km initial radius (km) <br />Modified cloud depth for 10.0 km initial radius (km) <br />Cloud-top temperature for 10.0 km initial radius (OC) <br />Total supercooled water content for 10.0 km initial radius (g kg-I) <br /> <br />6.96 <br />8.36 <br />-0.67 <br />-0.60 <br />9.07 <br />8.59 <br />1.54 <br />-6.23 <br />7.01 <br />2.44 <br />-12.62 <br />1.32 <br />3.01 <br />-16.76 <br />2.23 <br />5.22 <br />5.49 <br />- 34.46 <br />6.79 <br /> <br />0.013 <br />0.025 <br />0.012 <br />0.005 <br />0.022 <br />0.019 <br />0:008 <br />0.059 <br />0.036 <br />0.003 <br />0.008 <br />0.018 <br />0.003 <br />0.004 <br />0.017 <br />0.009 <br />0.011 <br />0.012 <br />0.016 <br /> <br />3.89 <br />3.89 <br />-0.81 <br />-0.83 <br />7.24 <br />6.71 <br />0.30 <br />- 1.28 <br />5.50 <br />0.42 <br />2.09 <br />0.18 <br />0.51 <br />2.57 <br />0.33 <br />1.10 <br />1.19 <br />-7.39 <br />1.10 <br /> <br />Cloud type <br /> <br />Cumulus congestus <br />n = 12 <br /> <br />Cumulonimbus <br />n = 28 <br /> <br />Cloud-base height (km MSL) <br />Cloud-base temperature eC) <br />Surface'mixing ratio (g kg-I) <br />Mean mixing ratio for layer from Sfc to 50 mb AGL (g kg-I) <br />Mean mixing ratio for layer from Sfc to 100 mb AGL (g kg-') <br />Mean mixing ratio for layer from 100 to 150 mb AGL (g kg-') <br />Mean mixing ratio for layer from 150 to 200 mb AGL (g kg:-') <br />Total supercooled water content (g kg-I) for 1.0 km initial radius (g kg-I) <br />Total supercooled water content for 1.5 km initial radius (g kg-I) <br />Total supercooled water content for 2.0 km initial radius (g kg-') <br />Total supercooled water content for 3.0 km initial radius (g kg-I) <br />Total supercooled water content for 10.0 km initial radius (g kg-I) <br /> <br />3.74 <br />2.42 <br />8.22 <br />7.33 <br />6.37 <br />5.69 <br />4.81 <br />0.08 <br />0.32 <br />0.48 <br />0.75 <br />1.65 <br /> <br />3.01 <br />6.96 <br />9.76 <br />9.07 <br />8.59 <br />7.42 <br />6.36 <br />1.32 <br />2.23 <br />3.06 <br />4.11 <br />6.79 <br /> <br />0.013 <br />0.001 <br />0.025 <br />0.003 <br />0.002 <br />0.000 <br />0.000 <br />0.007 <br />0.009 <br />0.009 <br />0.012 <br />0.017 <br /> <br />* All variables whose P-values were <0.060 are listed in table 4. <br />** Similar variables were significant for the 2.0 km and 3.0 km initial radius cases. <br /> <br />maximum updraft speeds, and total supercooled <br />water (Table 4). <br />The P value in these cases is the probability that <br />the differences between variables of the two cloud <br />types could have occurred by chance. These results <br />show that cloud-model diagnoses are generally con- <br />sistent with the expected theoretical differences in <br />thermodynamic controls from one level of convec- <br />tive intensity to another; hence, we have confidence <br />in the value of these analyses in determining <br />general thermodynamic characteristics of use in <br />describing the natural variability of cloud growth. <br />Note that similar statistically significant results <br />(not shown) were obtained from the analyses of <br />cases from' GLD and BGS in 1976 and 1977 samples <br />when satellite observations of cloud types were <br />available (sample size of 157-202 soundings). <br /> <br />4. Natural variability of convective thermodynamics <br /> <br />a. Mesoscale spatial variability <br /> <br />1) DAILY V ARIABIUTY <br /> <br />The spatial variability of three simultaneous <br />mesoscale rawinsonde observations clearly showed <br />the need to verify individual model diagnoses of <br />thermodynamic potential for cloud growth. Analysis <br />of simultaneous multiple mesoscale rawinsonde <br />data observed in the 1975 Montana network (Fig. <br />1) shows large variations in mean lapse rates and <br />mean mixing ratios of six layers from the surface <br />to 50 kPa (Table 5). These variations in thermo- <br />dynamic variables resulted in significant differences <br />in model diagnosis of thermodynamic properties <br />of convective clouds on a given day and time. The <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />