期刊文献+

MM5模式显式微物理方案的对比分析 被引量:36

Comparison of Explicit Microphysical Schemes in MM5
下载PDF
导出
摘要 介绍了MM 5中的显式云物理方案 ,详细分析了Goddard、Reisner和Schultz方案的物理过程特点和存在的不足。这些云物理方案的多个微物理过程的描述不是很合理 ,对粒子的自动转化过程都采用阈值 ,且对雪、霰和雨的数浓度只进行诊断计算。Reisner方案的物理过程相对全面 ,预报量也较多 ,但仍存在一定的不足。通过对 1992年Andrew台风个例的模拟 ,发现尽管Reisner方案的物理过程比Goddard和Schultz方案全面 ,但模拟的台风眼最低气压和地面最大风速并没有优势。所以单一物理过程描述的改善不一定立即带来模式预报成效的提高 。 The various explicit microphysical schemes in MM5 are described, and especially the characteristics and shortages of Goddard, Reisner graupel and Schultz schemes are analyzed in detail. In these schemes, descriptions about some microphysical processes and variables are not quite reasonable and some of micro-processes need to be improved, such as ice nucleation, freezing of rain into graupels, auto-conversion and deposition of vapor into graupel, etc. A hurricane was simulated with Goddard, Schultz and Reisner graupel schemes. All the three schemes performed well in the structure and evolution simulation generally. The releases of phase-changing latent heat are sorted into six kinds, though they are highly sensitive to explicit schemes. The total effects of temperature caused by their latent heat are between 1.5 and 2.0 ℃.As for microphysical processes, the Reisner scheme is better than Goddard and Schultz schemes, but its simulations of the central pressure at the typhoon eye and the maximum surface wind speed are not as well as others, with the minimum pressure being much slower and the speed is higher than the observed. The simulation shows that a better cloud and precipitation scheme doesn't certainly improve the simulation results, and other physical and dynamics processes and initial input data may also affect the results.
出处 《气象科技》 北大核心 2004年第1期6-12,共7页 Meteorological Science and Technology
基金 973项目 (G19980 40 911) "十五"国家科技攻关课题 2 0 0 1BA610A 0 6的资助
关键词 微物理过程 中尺度模式MM5 台风模拟 对比分析 MM5 explicit schemes, microphysical processes, hurricane simulation, comparison analysis
  • 相关文献

参考文献10

  • 1Reisner J, Rasmussen R M. Bruintjes R T. Explicit forecasting of supercooled liquid water in winter storms using the MM5 mesoscale model. Qurt. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 1998, 124: 1071-1107
  • 2Dudhia J. A nonhydrostatic version of the Penn State-NCAR mesoscale model: Validation tests and simulation of an Atlantic cyclone and cold front. Mon. Wea. Rev.,1993, 121: 1493-1513
  • 3Hsie E Y, Farley R D, Orville H D. Numerical simulation of ice-phase convective cloud seeding. J. Appl. Meteor.,1980, 19(8): 950-977
  • 4Lin Y L, Farley R D, Orville H D. Bulk parameterization of the snowfield in a cloud model.J. Climate Appl. Meteor.,1983, 22(6): 1065-1091
  • 5Tao W K, Simpson J. The Goddard cumulus ensemble model, Part I: Model description. Terrestrial,Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences,1993, 4: 19-54
  • 6Schultz P. An explicit cloud physics parameterization for operational numerical weather prediction.Mon. Wea. Rev., 1995, 123(11): 3331-3343
  • 7Liu Y B, Zhang D L, Yau M K. A multiscale numerical study of hurricane Andrew (1992), Part Ⅰ: Explicit simulation and verification. Mon. Wea. Rev., 1997, 125(12): 3073-3093
  • 8Willoughby H E, Black P G. Hurricane Andrew in Florida: Dynamics of a disaster. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 1996, 77(3): 543-549
  • 9Dudhia J. A nonhydrostatic version of the Penn State-NCAR mesoscale model: Validation tests and simulation of an Atlantic cyclone and cold front. Mon. Wea. Rev.,1993, 121(5): 1493-1513
  • 10Mayfield M, Avila L, Rappaport E N. Annual summaries, Atlantic hurricane season of 1992.Mon. Wea. Rev.,1994, 122(3): 517-538

同被引文献618

引证文献36

二级引证文献520

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部