Simulated radar measurements in

1
Simulated radar measurements in NWP-model
validation Carl Fortelius Finnish
Meteorological Institute
2
Contents 1. What are simulated radar
measurements 2. Why are they needed 3. What do
they tell
3
Special thanks to Günther Haase and DWD for the
RSM code Harri Hohti for radar data Sami
Niemelä for Hirlam output
4
3D NWP model output T, q, hydrometeors
5
3D NWP model output T, q, hydrometeors
Volume backscattering coefficient (Mie)
6
3D NWP model output T, q, hydrometeors
Volume backscattering coefficient (Mie)
Radar ray propagation, extinction
7
3D NWP model output T, q, hydrometeors
Volume backscattering coefficient (Mie)
Radar ray propagation, extinction
Simulated measurements PPI, RHI, statistics,...
8
Example Comparing two parameterizations of
convection and moist physics in HIRLAM
9
Example Comparing two parameterizations of
convection and moist physics in
HIRLAM Model HIRLAM 5.0.0 Resolution 40
levels, 5.5 km Experiments (Sami Niemelä, Univ.
Helsinki) HHS Reference version HHK
''STRACO'' replaced by ''RKKF'' Boundaries
initial state FMI operational analyses (31
levels, 22 km)
10
Example Comparing two parameterizations of
convection and moist physics in
HIRLAM Model HIRLAM 5.0.0 Resolution 40
levels, 5.5 km Experiments (Sami Niemelä, Univ.
Helsinki) HHS Reference version HHK
''STRACO'' replaced by ''RKKF'' Boundaries
initial state FMI operational analyses (31
levels, 22 km) Radars Gematronik 5.6 GHz,
Sigmet signal processing Vantaa, Ikaalinen,
Anjalankoski
11
Analysis 25 May 2001 12 UTC
Model domain and composite area
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
Conclusions NWP-models produce realistic(?)
reflectivity distributions RSM only (?) way to
verify vertically distributed hydrometeors RSM
brings out differences between alternative model
formulations when traditional methods fail RSM
is computationally demanding