Quality assessment of water cycle parameters in REMO by radar-lidar synergy

A comparison study of water cycle parameters derived from ground-based remote-sensing instruments and from the regional model REMO is presented. Observational data sets were collected during three measuring campaigns in summer/autumn 2003 and 2004 at Richard Aßmann Observatory, Lindenberg, Germany....

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: B. Hennemuth, A. Weiss, J. Bösenberg, D. Jacob, H. Linné, G. Peters, S. Pfeifer
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Copernicus Publications 2008-01-01
Series:Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Online Access:http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/287/2008/acp-8-287-2008.pdf
id doaj-01597dee251e4f228776d005439ee725
record_format Article
spelling doaj-01597dee251e4f228776d005439ee7252020-11-24T22:49:10ZengCopernicus PublicationsAtmospheric Chemistry and Physics1680-73161680-73242008-01-0182287308Quality assessment of water cycle parameters in REMO by radar-lidar synergyB. HennemuthA. WeissJ. BösenbergD. JacobH. LinnéG. PetersS. PfeiferA comparison study of water cycle parameters derived from ground-based remote-sensing instruments and from the regional model REMO is presented. Observational data sets were collected during three measuring campaigns in summer/autumn 2003 and 2004 at Richard Aßmann Observatory, Lindenberg, Germany. The remote sensing instruments which were used are differential absorption lidar, Doppler lidar, ceilometer, cloud radar, and micro rain radar for the derivation of humidity profiles, ABL height, water vapour flux profiles, cloud parameters, and rain rate. Additionally, surface latent and sensible heat flux and soil moisture were measured. Error ranges and representativity of the data are discussed. For comparisons the regional model REMO was run for all measuring periods with a horizontal resolution of 18 km and 33 vertical levels. Parameter output was every hour. The measured data were transformed to the vertical model grid and averaged in time in order to better match with gridbox model values. The comparisons show that the atmospheric boundary layer is not adequately simulated, on most days it is too shallow and too moist. This is found to be caused by a wrong partitioning of energy at the surface, particularly a too large latent heat flux. The reason is obviously an overestimation of soil moisture during drying periods by the one-layer scheme in the model. The profiles of water vapour transport within the ABL appear to be realistically simulated. The comparison of cloud cover reveals an underestimation of low-level and mid-level clouds by the model, whereas the comparison of high-level clouds is hampered by the inability of the cloud radar to see cirrus clouds above 10 km. Simulated ABL clouds apparently have a too low cloud base, and the vertical extent is underestimated. The ice water content of clouds agree in model and observation whereas the liquid water content is unsufficiently derived from cloud radar reflectivity in the present study. Rain rates are similar, but the representativeness of both observations and grid box values is low. http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/287/2008/acp-8-287-2008.pdf
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author B. Hennemuth
A. Weiss
J. Bösenberg
D. Jacob
H. Linné
G. Peters
S. Pfeifer
spellingShingle B. Hennemuth
A. Weiss
J. Bösenberg
D. Jacob
H. Linné
G. Peters
S. Pfeifer
Quality assessment of water cycle parameters in REMO by radar-lidar synergy
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
author_facet B. Hennemuth
A. Weiss
J. Bösenberg
D. Jacob
H. Linné
G. Peters
S. Pfeifer
author_sort B. Hennemuth
title Quality assessment of water cycle parameters in REMO by radar-lidar synergy
title_short Quality assessment of water cycle parameters in REMO by radar-lidar synergy
title_full Quality assessment of water cycle parameters in REMO by radar-lidar synergy
title_fullStr Quality assessment of water cycle parameters in REMO by radar-lidar synergy
title_full_unstemmed Quality assessment of water cycle parameters in REMO by radar-lidar synergy
title_sort quality assessment of water cycle parameters in remo by radar-lidar synergy
publisher Copernicus Publications
series Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
issn 1680-7316
1680-7324
publishDate 2008-01-01
description A comparison study of water cycle parameters derived from ground-based remote-sensing instruments and from the regional model REMO is presented. Observational data sets were collected during three measuring campaigns in summer/autumn 2003 and 2004 at Richard Aßmann Observatory, Lindenberg, Germany. The remote sensing instruments which were used are differential absorption lidar, Doppler lidar, ceilometer, cloud radar, and micro rain radar for the derivation of humidity profiles, ABL height, water vapour flux profiles, cloud parameters, and rain rate. Additionally, surface latent and sensible heat flux and soil moisture were measured. Error ranges and representativity of the data are discussed. For comparisons the regional model REMO was run for all measuring periods with a horizontal resolution of 18 km and 33 vertical levels. Parameter output was every hour. The measured data were transformed to the vertical model grid and averaged in time in order to better match with gridbox model values. The comparisons show that the atmospheric boundary layer is not adequately simulated, on most days it is too shallow and too moist. This is found to be caused by a wrong partitioning of energy at the surface, particularly a too large latent heat flux. The reason is obviously an overestimation of soil moisture during drying periods by the one-layer scheme in the model. The profiles of water vapour transport within the ABL appear to be realistically simulated. The comparison of cloud cover reveals an underestimation of low-level and mid-level clouds by the model, whereas the comparison of high-level clouds is hampered by the inability of the cloud radar to see cirrus clouds above 10 km. Simulated ABL clouds apparently have a too low cloud base, and the vertical extent is underestimated. The ice water content of clouds agree in model and observation whereas the liquid water content is unsufficiently derived from cloud radar reflectivity in the present study. Rain rates are similar, but the representativeness of both observations and grid box values is low.
url http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/287/2008/acp-8-287-2008.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT bhennemuth qualityassessmentofwatercycleparametersinremobyradarlidarsynergy
AT aweiss qualityassessmentofwatercycleparametersinremobyradarlidarsynergy
AT jbosenberg qualityassessmentofwatercycleparametersinremobyradarlidarsynergy
AT djacob qualityassessmentofwatercycleparametersinremobyradarlidarsynergy
AT hlinne qualityassessmentofwatercycleparametersinremobyradarlidarsynergy
AT gpeters qualityassessmentofwatercycleparametersinremobyradarlidarsynergy
AT spfeifer qualityassessmentofwatercycleparametersinremobyradarlidarsynergy
_version_ 1725677021850238976