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:

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 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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Methodology Comparison (for all combinations of convection and numerical schemes): v vs. v v vs. MOSAIC v vs. TILE (NSUB, SUB1, SUB2) v 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

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 MOSAIC KAFR-HEVIKAFR-LFSIKAFR-RKN1KAFR-RKN2 QV2M 1111 QVSF 1111 T-SOI 1111 TD2M 1111 TE2M1111 VER MOSAIC SHAL-HEVISHAL-LFSISHAL-RKN1SHAL-RKN2 QV2M 1111 QVSF 1111 T-SOI 1111 TD2M 1111 TE2M1111 VER MOSAIC TIED-HEVITIED-LFSITIED-RKN1TIED-RKN2 QV2M 1111 QVSF 1111 T-SOI 1111 TD2M 1111 TE2M1111 Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

The ”worst” results – 18 XI 2010 VER 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 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 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

Bad, but not the ”worst” results – 18 XI 2010 Differences of v 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.: Correlation coeff.: Differences of v vs. TILE-SUB1 Tiedtke’s convection scheme Leapfrog (HE-VI) numerical scheme Experiments with TILES and MOSAIC at IMWM

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

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

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

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

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AUTHORS:Grzegorz Duniec Warszawa, ul.: Podleśna 61 phone: +48 (22) Andrzej Mazur Warszawa, ul.: Podleśna 61 phone: +48 (22)