1. INSTYTUT METEOROLOGII I GOSPODARKI WODNEJ INSTITUTE OF METEOROLOGY AND WATER MANAGEMENT TITLE : IMPLEMENTATION OF MOSAIC APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM AUTHORS: Grzegorz Duniec, Andrzej Mazur DATE: 05.09.2010

2. 2 1.Validation of SUBS – done for ver. 4.8 of COSMO MODEL 2.Estimation of the influence of SUBS on model results for different parameterization of physics and numerics Studies IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

3. 3 Numerical schemes Leapfrog: 3–timelevel HE-VI (Horizontally Explicit – Vertically Implicit) Integration Leapfrog: 3–timelevel semi–implicit Runge – Kutta: 2–timelevel HE–VI Integration with irunge_kutta=1 (3-order standard scheme) Runge – Kutta: 2–timelevel HE–VI Integration with irunge_kutta=2 (variant scheme with Total Variation Diminishing ) Convection schemes Kain – Fritsch (1992) Tiedtke (1989) Modified Tiedtke scheme for shallow convection Tests setup IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

4. 4 Domain (113x101 grid points, 40 levels, resolution 7km, forecast time horizon 3 hours) Tests setup (cntd.) IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

5. 5 Orig – original COSMO ver. 4.8 Ctrl – control (subs-modified code of COSMO ver 4.8 with no account for subs: nsubs=0) Twins – subs modified COSMO ver. 4.8 with nsubs=4, low resolution input data only (nsubs=4, identical subpixels) Subs – modified COSMO ver. 4.8, nsubs=4, high–resolution data included Explanation of abbreviations IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

6. 6 T2m – air temperature at 2m above groud level TD – dew point temperature TSO – soil temperature at 0 cm down (surface temp.) U10m – zonal wind component, 10m above ground level V10m – meridional wind component, 10m above ground level Water+ice content of soil layers 1cm down Resulting fields (selected) IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

7. Dates chosen for tests IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM Six different synoptic situations chosen for tests (domain marked with black frame in next six slides)  2009.II.01 (00UTC) low temperature, ground was frozen solid  2009.IV.22 (12 UTC) sunny/fair day  2009.X.16 (00 UTC, 06 UTC) ground covered with snow  2009.XI.04 (12 UTC) windy day with intensive precipitation  2009.XI.21 (06 UTC) dense fog and data for previous case with correct formula for derivation of mean qvs to mimic flux averaging  2006.VIII.01 (12 UTC)

8. 8 low temperature, ground was frozen solid Synoptic situation – 01 II 2009 IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

9. 9 sunny/fair day Synoptic situation – 22 IV 2009 IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

10. 10 ground covered with snow Synoptic situation – 16 X 2009 IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

11. 11 windy day with intensive precipitation Synoptic sytuation – 04 XI 2009 IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

12. 12 dense fog Synoptic sytuation – 21 XI 2009 IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM

13. Methodology IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM Comparison (for all combinations of convection and numerical schemes) orig vs ctrl orig vs subs orig vs twins twins vs ctrl subs vs ctrl twins vs subs Statistics (for all combinations of convection and numerical schemes) correlation standard deviation covariance variance

14. The ”best” configurations and results IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM The „best” configuration (concerning correlation coefficient) was obtained for all combinations – results for water in soil (WSO) for 01 II, 22 IV, 16 X, 21 XI (with and without shallow convection). correlation coefficient – WSO leapdef l eapdef1leapsemi l eapsemi1Runge K utta1Runge K utta2 orig-twins111111 orig-subs111111 orig-ctrl111111 ctrl-twins111111 ctrl-subs111111 subs-twins111111

15. The ”best” configurations and results IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM One of the „best” configuration (concerning correlation coefficient) was obtained for zonal wind component (U10) for 22 IV 2009 (without shallow convection). correlation coefficient – U10 (without shallow convection) leapdef l eapdef1leapsemi l eapsemi1Runge K utta1Runge K utta2 orig-twins111111 orig-subs0,9990,9980,9920,9910,999 orig-ctrl111111 ctrl-twins111111 ctrl-subs0,999 0,9920,9910,999 subs-twins0,999 0,9920,9910,999

16. The ”best” configurations and results IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM The „best” configuration (concerning correlation coefficient) was obtained for dew point temperature (TD) for 01 II 2009 (with shallow convection). correlation coefficient – TD (with shallow convection) leapdefleapsemiRunge K utta1Runge K utta2 orig-twins1111 orig-subs0,9990,9980,999 orig-ctrl1111 ctrl-twins1111 ctrl-subs0,9990,9980,999 subs-twins0,9990,9980,999

17. The ”worst” configurations and results IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM One of the „worst” configuration (concerning correlation coefficient) was obtained for orig vs. twins, ctrl vs. twins, subs vs. twins for air temperature for 04 XI 2009: correlation coefficient – T 2M (without shallow convection) leapdefleapsemiRunge K utta1Runge K utta2 orig-twins0,0260,0490,026 orig-subs0,9990,9920,9991 orig-ctrl1111 ctrl-twins0,0260,0490,026 ctrl-subs0,9990,99311 subs-twins0,0260,0570,0270,028

18. The ”worst” configurations and results IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM One of the „worst” configuration (concerning correlation coefficient) was obtained for orig vs. twins, ctrl vs. twins, subs vs. twins for air temperature for 04 XI 2009: correlation coefficient – T 2M (with shallow convection) leapdefleapsemiRunge K utta1Runge K utta2 orig-twins0,0200,0370,024 orig-subs10,99711 orig-ctrl1111 ctrl-twins0,0200,0370,024 ctrl-subs10,99711 subs-twins0,0200,0440,026

19. The ”worst” configurations and results IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM The „worst” configuration (concerning correlation coefficient) was obtained for leapsemi – orig, ctrl and subs vs. twins – results for soil temperature for 16 X 2009: correlation coefficient – TSO (without shallow convection) leapdef l eapdef1leapsemi l eapsemi1Runge K utta1Runge K utta2 orig-twins110,85111 orig-subs0,998 0,997 0,998 orig-ctrl111111 ctrl-twins110,85111 ctrl-subs0,998 0,9970,9960,998 subs-twins0,9970,9980,850,9960,998

20. Two bugs in cosmo-subs detected (Corrected by Annika Schomburg) IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM 1. The major bug is in the computation of the effective qv_s (specific humidity at the surface): wrong formula correct formula 2. The second error is not important for the model run itself, only for some of the output variables. In the module near_surface.f90 there is a loop over ns=1:nsubs1, which, by mistake, includes some of the output variables like rain_con, which are summed up too many times due to this loop. To correct this bug one can just exchange the single large loop by smaller loops only for those variables where necessary.

21. Results with wrong formula for 1 VIII 2006 (example) IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM correlation coefficient – zonal wind component leapdefleapsemi l eapsemi1Runge-Kutta1Runge-Kutta1.1Runge K utta2RungeKutta2.1 orig-twins0,89 0,920,980,910,880,91 orig-subs0,880,850,880,410,920,420,92 subs-twins0,990,970,980,210,990,210,99

22. Results with correct formula for 1 VIII 2006 (example) IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM correlation coefficient – zonal wind component leapdefleapsemi l eapsemi1RungeKutta1RungeKutta1.1Runge K utta2RungeKutta2.1 orig-twins1111111 orig-subs0,9940,9790,9800,9950,9960,9950,996 subs-twins0,9940,9790,9800,9950,9960,9950,996

23. The ”worst” configurations and results – 16 X 2009 IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM Soil temperature at 0 cm down (surface temp.) CORRELATION: 0,85 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORIG AND TWINS (K)

24. The ”worst” configurations and results – 16 X 2009 IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM Soil temperature at 0 cm down (surface temp.) CORRELATION: 0,85 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBS AND TWINS (K)

25. The ”worst” configurations and results – 16 X 2009 IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM Soil temperature at 0 cm down (surface temp.) CORRELATION: 0,85 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CTRL AND TWINS (K)

26. The ”best” configurations and results – 22 IV 2009 IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM Zonal component wind (U10) without shallow convection CORRELATION: 0,991 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBS AND TWINS (K)

27. The ”best” configurations and results – 01 II 2009 IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM Dew point temperature (TD) (with shallow convection) CORRELATION: 0,998 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBS AND TWINS (K)

28. The ”worst” configurations and results – 04 XI 2009 IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM Air temperature at 2 m (T2M) (without shallow convection) CORRELATION: 0,026 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBS AND TWINS (K)

29. The ”worst” configurations and results – 04 XI 2009 IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM Air temperature at 2 m (T2M) (with shallow convection) CORRELATION: 0,020 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CTRL AND TWINS (K)

30. Results for 1 VIII 2006 with wrong formula IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM Zonal wind component (U10) CORRELATION: 0,21 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBS AND TWINS (K)

31. Results for 1 VIII 2006 with correct formula IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM Zonal wind component (U10) CORRELATION: 0,995 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBS AND TWINS (K)

32. Summary IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM Extended tests of MOSAIC4COSMO implentation was performed. Miscellaneous combinations of various numerical schemes and physical parameterizations were tested for six different synoptic situations Except for November 4th, 2009, correlation between results for selected meteorological fields is quite good (from 0.85 to ~1) Numerical errors (esp. in data preparation) seem to be a reason for poor correlation for November 4th, 2009

33. Plans IMPLEMENTATION OF TILE APPROACH IN COSMO AT IMWM 1.We want to test two new data sets with very interesting meteorological situation(s): -15 VIII 2008 –very strong thunderstorm, -May 2010 – very intensive precipitation. 2. We intend to check an influence of subs and twins on: -moisture flux, -heat flux, -microstructure of Stratus- and Stratocumulus clouds (e.g. liquid water content or ice content, esp. in winter), -cloud cover with Stratus- or Stratocumulus clouds, -precipitation intensity, -height of cloud base for Stratus- and Stratocumulus clouds, -microstructure of fog layers, -structure of boundary layer… 3. If there will be an interest to – maybe to go for tile approach…

34. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AUTHORS:Grzegorz Duniec 01-673 Warszawa, ul.: Podleśna 61 phone: +48 (22) 56 94 131 grzegorz.duniec@imgw.pl Andrzej Mazur 01-673 Warszawa, ul.: Podleśna 61 phone: +48 (22) 56 94 134 andrzej.mazur@imgw.pl