Comparing microphysical/dynamical outputs by different cloud resolving models: impact on passive microwave precipitation retrieval from satellite

Mesoscale cloud resolving models (CRM's) are often utilized to generate consistent descriptions of the microphysical structure of precipitating clouds, which are then used by physically-based algorithms for retrieving precipitation from satellite-borne microwave radiometers. However, in pri...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: C. M. Medaglia, C. Adamo, F. Baordo, S. Dietrich, S. Di Michele, V. Kotroni, K. Lagouvardos, A. Mugnai, S. Pinori, E. A. Smith, G. J. Tripoli
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Copernicus Publications 2005-01-01
Series:Advances in Geosciences
Online Access:http://www.adv-geosci.net/2/195/2005/adgeo-2-195-2005.pdf
id doaj-cc601592fd36403c9b489ce5b1322ab2
record_format Article
spelling doaj-cc601592fd36403c9b489ce5b1322ab22020-11-24T23:55:55ZengCopernicus PublicationsAdvances in Geosciences1680-73401680-73592005-01-012195199Comparing microphysical/dynamical outputs by different cloud resolving models: impact on passive microwave precipitation retrieval from satelliteC. M. MedagliaC. AdamoF. BaordoS. DietrichS. Di MicheleS. Di MicheleV. KotroniK. LagouvardosA. MugnaiS. PinoriE. A. SmithG. J. TripoliMesoscale cloud resolving models (CRM&apos;s) are often utilized to generate consistent descriptions of the microphysical structure of precipitating clouds, which are then used by physically-based algorithms for retrieving precipitation from satellite-borne microwave radiometers. However, in principle, the simulated upwelling brightness temperatures (T<sub>B</sub>&apos;s) and derived precipitation retrievals generated by means of different CRM&apos;s with different microphysical assumptions, may be significantly different even when the models simulate well the storm dynamical and rainfall characteristics. <P style=&quot;line-height: 20px;&quot;> In this paper, we investigate this issue for two well-known models having different treatment of the bulk microphysics, i.e. the UW-NMS and the MM5. To this end, the models are used to simulate the same 24-26 November 2002 flood-producing storm over northern Italy. The model outputs that best reproduce the structure of the storm, as it was observed by the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR) onboard the EOS-Aqua satellite, have been used in order to compute the upwelling T<sub>B</sub>&apos;s. Then, these T<sub>B</sub>&apos;s have been utilized for retrieving the precipitation fields from the AMSR observations. Finally, these results are compared in order to provide an indication of the CRM-effect on precipitation retrieval.http://www.adv-geosci.net/2/195/2005/adgeo-2-195-2005.pdf
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author C. M. Medaglia
C. Adamo
F. Baordo
S. Dietrich
S. Di Michele
S. Di Michele
V. Kotroni
K. Lagouvardos
A. Mugnai
S. Pinori
E. A. Smith
G. J. Tripoli
spellingShingle C. M. Medaglia
C. Adamo
F. Baordo
S. Dietrich
S. Di Michele
S. Di Michele
V. Kotroni
K. Lagouvardos
A. Mugnai
S. Pinori
E. A. Smith
G. J. Tripoli
Comparing microphysical/dynamical outputs by different cloud resolving models: impact on passive microwave precipitation retrieval from satellite
Advances in Geosciences
author_facet C. M. Medaglia
C. Adamo
F. Baordo
S. Dietrich
S. Di Michele
S. Di Michele
V. Kotroni
K. Lagouvardos
A. Mugnai
S. Pinori
E. A. Smith
G. J. Tripoli
author_sort C. M. Medaglia
title Comparing microphysical/dynamical outputs by different cloud resolving models: impact on passive microwave precipitation retrieval from satellite
title_short Comparing microphysical/dynamical outputs by different cloud resolving models: impact on passive microwave precipitation retrieval from satellite
title_full Comparing microphysical/dynamical outputs by different cloud resolving models: impact on passive microwave precipitation retrieval from satellite
title_fullStr Comparing microphysical/dynamical outputs by different cloud resolving models: impact on passive microwave precipitation retrieval from satellite
title_full_unstemmed Comparing microphysical/dynamical outputs by different cloud resolving models: impact on passive microwave precipitation retrieval from satellite
title_sort comparing microphysical/dynamical outputs by different cloud resolving models: impact on passive microwave precipitation retrieval from satellite
publisher Copernicus Publications
series Advances in Geosciences
issn 1680-7340
1680-7359
publishDate 2005-01-01
description Mesoscale cloud resolving models (CRM&apos;s) are often utilized to generate consistent descriptions of the microphysical structure of precipitating clouds, which are then used by physically-based algorithms for retrieving precipitation from satellite-borne microwave radiometers. However, in principle, the simulated upwelling brightness temperatures (T<sub>B</sub>&apos;s) and derived precipitation retrievals generated by means of different CRM&apos;s with different microphysical assumptions, may be significantly different even when the models simulate well the storm dynamical and rainfall characteristics. <P style=&quot;line-height: 20px;&quot;> In this paper, we investigate this issue for two well-known models having different treatment of the bulk microphysics, i.e. the UW-NMS and the MM5. To this end, the models are used to simulate the same 24-26 November 2002 flood-producing storm over northern Italy. The model outputs that best reproduce the structure of the storm, as it was observed by the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR) onboard the EOS-Aqua satellite, have been used in order to compute the upwelling T<sub>B</sub>&apos;s. Then, these T<sub>B</sub>&apos;s have been utilized for retrieving the precipitation fields from the AMSR observations. Finally, these results are compared in order to provide an indication of the CRM-effect on precipitation retrieval.
url http://www.adv-geosci.net/2/195/2005/adgeo-2-195-2005.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT cmmedaglia comparingmicrophysicaldynamicaloutputsbydifferentcloudresolvingmodelsimpactonpassivemicrowaveprecipitationretrievalfromsatellite
AT cadamo comparingmicrophysicaldynamicaloutputsbydifferentcloudresolvingmodelsimpactonpassivemicrowaveprecipitationretrievalfromsatellite
AT fbaordo comparingmicrophysicaldynamicaloutputsbydifferentcloudresolvingmodelsimpactonpassivemicrowaveprecipitationretrievalfromsatellite
AT sdietrich comparingmicrophysicaldynamicaloutputsbydifferentcloudresolvingmodelsimpactonpassivemicrowaveprecipitationretrievalfromsatellite
AT sdimichele comparingmicrophysicaldynamicaloutputsbydifferentcloudresolvingmodelsimpactonpassivemicrowaveprecipitationretrievalfromsatellite
AT sdimichele comparingmicrophysicaldynamicaloutputsbydifferentcloudresolvingmodelsimpactonpassivemicrowaveprecipitationretrievalfromsatellite
AT vkotroni comparingmicrophysicaldynamicaloutputsbydifferentcloudresolvingmodelsimpactonpassivemicrowaveprecipitationretrievalfromsatellite
AT klagouvardos comparingmicrophysicaldynamicaloutputsbydifferentcloudresolvingmodelsimpactonpassivemicrowaveprecipitationretrievalfromsatellite
AT amugnai comparingmicrophysicaldynamicaloutputsbydifferentcloudresolvingmodelsimpactonpassivemicrowaveprecipitationretrievalfromsatellite
AT spinori comparingmicrophysicaldynamicaloutputsbydifferentcloudresolvingmodelsimpactonpassivemicrowaveprecipitationretrievalfromsatellite
AT easmith comparingmicrophysicaldynamicaloutputsbydifferentcloudresolvingmodelsimpactonpassivemicrowaveprecipitationretrievalfromsatellite
AT gjtripoli comparingmicrophysicaldynamicaloutputsbydifferentcloudresolvingmodelsimpactonpassivemicrowaveprecipitationretrievalfromsatellite
_version_ 1725460603911274496