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...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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'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>'s) and derived precipitation retrievals generated by means of different CRM's with different microphysical assumptions, may be significantly different even when the models simulate well the storm dynamical and rainfall characteristics. <P style="line-height: 20px;"> 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>'s. Then, these T<sub>B</sub>'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'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>'s) and derived precipitation retrievals generated by means of different CRM's with different microphysical assumptions, may be significantly different even when the models simulate well the storm dynamical and rainfall characteristics. <P style="line-height: 20px;"> 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>'s. Then, these T<sub>B</sub>'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 |