Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Adapting the COSP Radar Simulator to Compare GCM Output and GPM Precipitation Radar Observations

Adapting the COSP Radar Simulator to Compare GCM Output and GPM Precipitation Radar Observations <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Comparisons of precipitation between general circulation models (GCMs) and observations are often confounded by a mismatch between model output and instrument measurements, including variable type and temporal and spatial resolution. To mitigate these differences, the radar-simulator Quickbeam within the Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) Observation Simulator Package (COSP) simulates reflectivity from model variables at the sub-grid scale. This work adapts Quickbeam to the dual-frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR) onboard the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) satellite. The longer wavelength of the DPR is used to evaluate moderate-to-heavy precipitation in GCMs, which is missed when Quickbeam is used as a cloud radar simulator. Latitudinal and land/ocean comparisons are made between COSP output from the Community Atmospheric Model version 5 (CAM5) and DPR data. Additionally, this work improves the COSP sub-grid algorithm by applying a more realistic, non-deterministic approach to assigning GCM grid box convective cloud cover when convective cloud is not provided as a model output. Instead of assuming a static 5% convective cloud coverage, DPR convective precipitation coverage is used as a proxy for convective cloud coverage. For example, DPR observations show that convective rain typically only covers about 1% of a 2° grid box, but that the median convective rain area increases to over 10% in heavy rain cases. In our CAM5 tests, the updated sub-grid algorithm improved the comparison between reflectivity distributions when the convective cloud cover is provided versus the default 5% convective cloud cover assumption.</jats:p> http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology CrossRef

Adapting the COSP Radar Simulator to Compare GCM Output and GPM Precipitation Radar Observations

Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic TechnologyJun 17, 2021

Adapting the COSP Radar Simulator to Compare GCM Output and GPM Precipitation Radar Observations


Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Comparisons of precipitation between general circulation models (GCMs) and observations are often confounded by a mismatch between model output and instrument measurements, including variable type and temporal and spatial resolution. To mitigate these differences, the radar-simulator Quickbeam within the Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) Observation Simulator Package (COSP) simulates reflectivity from model variables at the sub-grid scale. This work adapts Quickbeam to the dual-frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR) onboard the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) satellite. The longer wavelength of the DPR is used to evaluate moderate-to-heavy precipitation in GCMs, which is missed when Quickbeam is used as a cloud radar simulator. Latitudinal and land/ocean comparisons are made between COSP output from the Community Atmospheric Model version 5 (CAM5) and DPR data. Additionally, this work improves the COSP sub-grid algorithm by applying a more realistic, non-deterministic approach to assigning GCM grid box convective cloud cover when convective cloud is not provided as a model output. Instead of assuming a static 5% convective cloud coverage, DPR convective precipitation coverage is used as a proxy for convective cloud coverage. For example, DPR observations show that convective rain typically only covers about 1% of a 2° grid box, but that the median convective rain area increases to over 10% in heavy rain cases. In our CAM5 tests, the updated sub-grid algorithm improved the comparison between reflectivity distributions when the convective cloud cover is provided versus the default 5% convective cloud cover assumption.</jats:p>

Loading next page...
 
/lp/crossref/adapting-the-cosp-radar-simulator-to-compare-gcm-output-and-gpm-beiv5Fky1K
Publisher
CrossRef
ISSN
0739-0572
DOI
10.1175/jtech-d-20-0089.1
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Comparisons of precipitation between general circulation models (GCMs) and observations are often confounded by a mismatch between model output and instrument measurements, including variable type and temporal and spatial resolution. To mitigate these differences, the radar-simulator Quickbeam within the Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) Observation Simulator Package (COSP) simulates reflectivity from model variables at the sub-grid scale. This work adapts Quickbeam to the dual-frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR) onboard the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) satellite. The longer wavelength of the DPR is used to evaluate moderate-to-heavy precipitation in GCMs, which is missed when Quickbeam is used as a cloud radar simulator. Latitudinal and land/ocean comparisons are made between COSP output from the Community Atmospheric Model version 5 (CAM5) and DPR data. Additionally, this work improves the COSP sub-grid algorithm by applying a more realistic, non-deterministic approach to assigning GCM grid box convective cloud cover when convective cloud is not provided as a model output. Instead of assuming a static 5% convective cloud coverage, DPR convective precipitation coverage is used as a proxy for convective cloud coverage. For example, DPR observations show that convective rain typically only covers about 1% of a 2° grid box, but that the median convective rain area increases to over 10% in heavy rain cases. In our CAM5 tests, the updated sub-grid algorithm improved the comparison between reflectivity distributions when the convective cloud cover is provided versus the default 5% convective cloud cover assumption.</jats:p>

Journal

Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic TechnologyCrossRef

Published: Jun 17, 2021

There are no references for this article.