Journal cover Journal topic
Geoscientific Model Development An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2018-99
© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Methods for assessment of models
30 May 2018
Review status
This discussion paper is a preprint. It is a manuscript under review for the journal Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
(GO)2-SIM: A GCM-Oriented Ground-Observation Forward-Simulator Framework for Objective Evaluation of Cloud and Precipitation Phase
Katia Lamer1, Ann M. Fridlind2, Andrew S. Ackerman2, Pavlos Kollias3,4,5, Eugene E. Clothiaux1, and Maxwell Kelley2 1Department of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 16802, USA
2NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, 10025, USA
3Environmental & Climate Sciences Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton , 11973, USA
4School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, 11794, USA
5University of Cologne, Cologne, 50937, Germany
Abstract. General circulation model (GCM) evaluation using ground-based observations is complicated by inconsistencies in hydrometeor and phase definitions. Here we describe (GO)2-SIM, a forward-simulator designed for objective hydrometeor phase evaluation, and assess its performance over the North Slope of Alaska using a one-year GCM simulation. For uncertainty quantification, 18 empirical relationships are used to convert model grid-average hydrometeor (liquid and ice, cloud and precipitation) water contents to zenith polarimetric micropulse lidar and Ka-band Doppler radar measurements producing an ensemble of 576 forward-simulation realizations. Sensor limitations are represented in forward space to objectively remove from consideration model grid cells with undetectable hydrometeor mixing ratios, some of which may correspond to numerical noise.

Phase classification in forward space is complicated by the inability of sensors to measure ice and liquid signals distinctly. However, signatures exist in lidar-radar space such that thresholds on observables can be objectively estimated and related to hydrometeor phase. The proposed phase classification technique leads to misclassification in fewer than 8 % of hydrometeor-containing grid cells. Such misclassifications arise because, while the radar is capable of detecting mixed-phase conditions, it can mistake water- for ice-dominated layers. However, applying the same classification algorithm to forward-simulated and observed fields should generate hydrometeor phase statistics with similar uncertainty. Alternatively, choosing to disregard how sensors define hydrometeor phase leads to frequency of occurrence discrepancies of up to 40 %. So, while hydrometeor phase maps determined in forward space are very different from model "reality" they capture the information sensors can provide and thereby enable objective model evaluation.
Citation: Lamer, K., Fridlind, A. M., Ackerman, A. S., Kollias, P., Clothiaux, E. E., and Kelley, M.: (GO)2-SIM: A GCM-Oriented Ground-Observation Forward-Simulator Framework for Objective Evaluation of Cloud and Precipitation Phase, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2018-99, in review, 2018.

Katia Lamer et al.
Katia Lamer et al.
Katia Lamer et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 195 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
169 22 4 195 4 4

Views and downloads (calculated since 30 May 2018)

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 30 May 2018)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 195 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

Thereof 194 with geography defined and 1 with unknown origin.

Country # Views %
  • 1

Saved

Discussed

Latest update: 19 Jun 2018
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
Weather and climate predictions of cloud, rain and snow occurrence remain uncertain in part because guidance from observation is incomplete. We present a tool that transforms predictions into observations possible from ground-based remote sensors. Liquid water and ice occurrence errors associated with the transformation are below 8 %, with ∼3 % uncertainty. This (GO)2-SIM forward-simulator tool enables better evaluation of cloud, rain and snow occurrence predictions using available observations.
Weather and climate predictions of cloud, rain and snow occurrence remain uncertain in part...
Share