Search

Several months of regional convection-permitting forecasts using two microphysical schemes (WSM6 and Thompson) are evaluated to determine the accuracy of the simulated convective structure and convective depth and the impact of microphysical scheme on simulated convective properties and biases. Forecasts are evaluated by using concepts from object-based approaches to compare the three-dimensional simulated reflectivity field with the reflectivity field as observed by radar. Results from analysis of both schemes reveals that forecasts generally perform well near the surface but differ considerably aloft both from observations and from each other. Forecasts are found to contain too many convective cores that are individually larger than in the observations, with at least double the number of observed convective cores reaching the midtroposphere (i.e., 4–8 km). Although the number of cores is overpredicted, WSM6 cores typically contain lower simulated reflectivity values than the observations, and the regions of highest reflectivity values do not extend far enough vertically. Conversely, Thompson cores are found to have significantly higher reflectivity values within cores, with the strongest intensities extending higher than in the observations and having magnitudes higher than any observed cores. Forecast reflectivity distributions within convective cells are found to contain more spread than in the observations. The study also assessed the uncertainty in simulated reflectivity calculations by using a second commonly utilized method to calculate simulated reflectivity. The sensitivity analysis reveals that the primary conclusions with each method are similar but the variability generated by using different simulated reflectivity calculations can be as pronounced as when using different microphysical schemes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes a method of absolutely calibrating and routinely monitoring the reflectivity calibration from a scanning weather radar using a vertically profiling radar that has been absolutely calibrated using a collocated surface disdrometer. The three instruments have different temporal and spatial resolutions, and the concept of upscaling is used to relate the small resolution volume disdrometer observations with the large resolution volume scanning radar observations. This study uses observations collected from a surface disdrometer, two profiling radars, and the National Weather Service (NWS) Weather Surveillance Radar-1988 Doppler (WSR-88D) scanning weather radar during the Texas–Florida Underflight-phase B (TEFLUN-B) ground validation field campaign held in central Florida during August and September 1998. The statistics from the 2062 matched profiling and scanning radar observations during this 2-month period indicate that the WSR-88D radar had a reflectivity 0.7 dBZ higher than the disdrometer-calibrated profiler, the standard deviation was 2.4 dBZ, and the 95% confidence interval was 0.1 dBZ. This study implies that although there is large variability between individual matched observations, the precision of a series of observations is good, allowing meaningful comparisons useful for calibration and monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]