1. INSTYTUT METEOROLOGII I GOSPODARKI WODNEJ INSTITUTE OF METEOROLOGY AND WATER MANAGEMENT TITLE : Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM AUTHORS: Grzegorz Duniec, Andrzej Mazur DATE: 05.09.2011

2. 2 Why? Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM Estimation of the influence of TILE and/or MOSAIC parameterisation on model results for different parameterisation of physics and numerics

3. 3 Numerical schemes Leapfrog: 3 – timelevel HE-VI Integration Leapfrog: 3 – timelevel semi – implicit Runge–Kutta: 2 – timelevel HE – VI Integration with irunge kutta=1 Runge–Kutta: 2 – timelevel HE – VI Integration with irunge kutta=2 Convection schemes Kain–Fritsch (1992) Tiedtke (1989) (shallow, deep) Setup chosen for tests Abbreviations – numerical schemes HEVI - leapdef - Leapfrog: 3 – timelevel HE-VI Integration LFSI - leapsemi - Leapfrog: 3 – timelevel semi – implicit RKN1 - rungekutta1 - Runge–Kutta: 2 – timelevel HE – VI Integration, irunge kutta=1 RKN2 - rungekutta2 - Runge–Kutta: 2 – timelevel HE – VI Integration, irunge kutta=2 Abbreviations – convection schemes KAFR – Kain–Fritsch’s convection scheme SHAL – shallow convection TIED – Tiedtke’s convection scheme Abbreviations – SUBS NSUB – v. 4.08, 4.14 – control (reference) runs *) NSUB – MOSAIC, TILE – nsubs=1, itype_subs (1 or 2, respct.) *) SUB1 – TILE with itype_subs=2, snow/no snow distinction SUB2 – TILE with itype_subs=2 lake/no lake distinction *) ”Sanity” checks Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

4. 4 TE2M – air temperature at 2m above groud level TD2M – dew point temperature at 2m agl. TSOI – soil temperature at 0 cm U10m – zonal wind component, 10m agl. V10m – meridional wind component, 10m agl. QV2M- specific water vapour content, 2m agl. QVSF – specific water vapour content at surface Resulting fields Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

5. Date selected and why ? Nine different synoptic situations selected for extensive tests  2009 II 01 (00UTC) – low temperature, the ground was frozen solid  2009 IV 22 (12 UTC) – sunny/fair day  2009 VII 22 (00 UTC) – sunny/fair day  2009 X 16 (00 UTC) – ground snow-covered  2009 XI 04 (12 UTC) – windy day with precipitation  2009 XI 21 (06 UTC) – foggy day  2010 I 10 (00 UTC) – ground snow-covered  2010 II 25 (00 UTC) – low temperature, the ground was frozen solid  2010 XI 18 (00 UTC) – data from FLAKE available Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

6. 6 low temperature, the ground was frozen solid Synoptic sytuation – 01 II 2009 Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

7. 7 sunny/fair day Synoptic sytuation – 22 IV 2009 Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

8. 8 Synoptic sytuation – 22 VII 2009 sunny/fair day Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

9. 9 ground snow-covered Synoptic sytuation – 16 X 2009 Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

10. 10 windy day with precipitation Synoptic sytuation – 04 XI 2009 Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

11. 11 foggy day Synoptic sytuation – 21 XI 2009 Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

12. 12 Synoptic sytuation – 10 I 2010 ground snow-covered Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

13. 13 Synoptic sytuation – 25 II 2010 low temperature, the ground was frozen solid Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

14. 14 Synoptic sytuation – 18 XI 2010 data from FLAKE available Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

15. Methodology Comparison (for all combinations of convection and numerical schemes): v. 4.08 vs. v. 4.14 v. 4. 08 vs. MOSAIC v. 4. 08 vs. TILE (NSUB, SUB1, SUB2) v. 4. 14 vs. TILE (NSUB, SUB1, SUB2) MOSAIC vs. TILE (NSUB, SUB1, SUB2) TILE (NSUB vs. SUB1, NSUB vs. SUB2, SUB1 vs. SUB2) Statistics (for all combinations of convection and numerical schemes): correlation standard deviation covariance variance Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

16. The ”best” results – 18 XI 2010 The ”best” results (concerning correlation coefficient) was gained for example for combinations ”4. 08 vs. MOSAIC”– for all meteorological fields. VER. 4.08-MOSAIC KAFR-HEVIKAFR-LFSIKAFR-RKN1KAFR-RKN2 QV2M 1111 QVSF 1111 T-SOI 1111 TD2M 1111 TE2M1111 VER. 4.08-MOSAIC SHAL-HEVISHAL-LFSISHAL-RKN1SHAL-RKN2 QV2M 1111 QVSF 1111 T-SOI 1111 TD2M 1111 TE2M1111 VER. 4.08-MOSAIC TIED-HEVITIED-LFSITIED-RKN1TIED-RKN2 QV2M 1111 QVSF 1111 T-SOI 1111 TD2M 1111 TE2M1111 Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

17. The ”worst” results – 18 XI 2010 VER. 4.14 -TILE-SUB1 KAFR-HEVIKAFR-LFSIKAFR-RKN1KAFR-RKN2 QV2M 0,98190,98410,9846 QVSF 0,94130,94640,9451 T-SOI 0,92780,93000,93170,9316 TD2M 0,98020,98180,9831 TE2M0,97290,97520,9792 The ”worst” results (concerning correlation coefficient) was gained for example for combinations ”4.14-TILE-SUB1” for selected output fields VER. 4.14 -TILE-SUB1 SHAL-HEVISHAL-LFSISHAL-RKN1SHAL-RKN2 QV2M 0,98200,98420,9847 QVSF 0,94140,94690,9451 T-SOI 0,92770,93020,93150,9316 TD2M 0,98030,98190,98310,9832 TE2M0,97270,97530,9791 VER. 4.14 -TILE-SUB1 TIED-HEVITIED-LFSITIED-RKN1TIED-RKN2 QV2M 0,98220,98380,9848 QVSF 0,94160,94570,94510,9450 T-SOI 0,92760,92900,9312 TD2M 0,98050,98160,9832 TE2M0,97250,97480,9791 Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

18. Bad, but not the ”worst” results – 18 XI 2010 Differences of v. 4.14 vs. TILE-SUB1 Tiedtke’s convection scheme Leapfrog (LF-SI) numerical scheme Specific water vapour content at surface (kg/kg) Air temperature at 2 m (K) Correlation coeff.: 0.9457Correlation coeff.: 0.97252 Differences of v. 4.14 vs. TILE-SUB1 Tiedtke’s convection scheme Leapfrog (HE-VI) numerical scheme Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

19. The ”worst” results – 18 XI 2010 Soil temperature at 0 cm (K) Correlation coeff.: 0.9278 Differences of v. 4.14 vs. TILE-SUB1 Kain–Fritsch’s convection scheme Leapfrog (HE-VI) numerical scheme Differences of v. 4.14 vs. TILE-SUB1 Shallow convection scheme Leapfrog (LF-SI) numerical scheme Correlation coeff.: 0.9302 Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

20. The ”worst” results – 18 XI 2010 Soil temperature at 0 cm (K) V. 4.14, NSUB (reference run) Kain–Fritsch’s convection scheme Leapfrog (HE-VI) numerical scheme TILE, NSUB (reference run) Kain–Fritsch’s convection scheme Leapfrog (HE-VI) numerical scheme Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

21. The ”worst” results – 18 XI 2010 Soil temperature at 0 cm (K) TILE, SUB1 Kain–Fritsch’s convection scheme Leapfrog (HE-VI) numerical scheme TILE, SUB2 Kain–Fritsch’s convection scheme Leapfrog (HE-VI) numerical scheme Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

22. Plans To check influence TILE and MOSAIC parameterisation on: -moisture flux, - heat flux, -microstructure of Stratus and Stratocumulus clouds (e.g. liquid water content or ice content), -cloud coverage by Stratus or Stratocumulus, -cloud coverage by middle and high clouds, - precipitation efficiency, - height base of Stratus and Stratocumulus types clouds, - microstructure of fogs, - boundary layer structure. Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

23. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AUTHORS:Grzegorz Duniec 01-673 Warszawa, ul.: Podleśna 61 phone: +48 (22) 56 94 130 grzegorz.duniec@imgw.pl Andrzej Mazur 01-673 Warszawa, ul.: Podleśna 61 phone: +48 (22) 56 94 134 andrzej.mazur@imgw.pl