Unified Model – The Social Metwork

Atmospheric blocking: why is it so hard to predict?

October 26, 2018Jacob MaddisonLeave a comment

Atmospheric blocks are nearly stationary large-scale flow features that effectively block the prevailing westerly winds and redirect mobile cyclones. They are typically characterised by a synoptic-scale, quasi-stationary high pressure system in the midlatitudes that can remain over a region for several weeks. Blocking events can cause extreme weather: heat waves in summer and cold spells in winter, and the impacts associated with these events can escalate due to a block’s persistence. Because of this, it is important that we can forecast blocking accurately. However, atmospheric blocking has been shown to be the cause of some of the poorest forecasts in recent years. Looking at all occasions when the ECMWF model experienced a period of very low forecast skill, Rodwell et al. (2013) found that the average flow pattern for which these forecasts verified was an easily-distinguishable atmospheric blocking pattern (Figure 1). But why are blocks so hard to forecast?

Fig_1_blogjacob — **Figure 1:** Average verifying 500 hPa geopotential height (Z500) field for occasions when the ECMWF model experienced very low skill. From Rodwell et al. (2013).

There are several reasons why forecasting blocking is a challenge. Firstly, there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes a block. Several different flow configurations that could be referred to as blocks are shown in Figure 2. The variety in flow patterns used to define blocking brings with it a variety of mechanisms that are dynamically important for blocks developing in a forecast (Woollings et al. 2018). Firstly, many phenomena must be well represented in a model for it to forecast all blocking events accurately. Secondly, there is no complete dynamical theory for block onset and maintenance- we do not know if a process key for blocking dynamics is missing from the equation set solved by numerical weather prediction models and is contributing to the forecast error. Finally, many of the known mechanisms associated with block onset and maintenance are also know sources of model uncertainty. For example, diabatic processes within extratropical cyclones have been shown to contribute substantially to blocking events (Pfahl et al. 2015), the parameterisation of which has been shown to affect medium-range forecasts of ridge building events (Martínez-Alvarado et al. 2015).

Fig_2_blogjacob — **Figure 2:** Different flow patterns, shown using Z500 (contours), that have been defined as blocks. From Woollings et al. (2018).

We do, however, know some ways to improve the representation of blocking: increase the horizontal resolution of the model (Schiemann et al. 2017); improve the parameterisation of subgrid physical processes (Jung et al. 2010); remove underlying model biases (Scaife et al. 2010); and in my PhD we found that improvements to a model’s dynamical core (the part of the model used to solved the governing equations) can also improve the medium-range forecast of blocking. In Figure 3, the frequency of blocking that occurred during two northern hemisphere winters is shown for the ERA-Interim reanalysis and three operational weather forecast centres (the ECMWF, Met Office (UKMO) and the Korean Meteorological Administration (KMA)). Both KMA and UKMO use the Met Office Unified Model – however, before the winter of 2014/15 the UKMO updated the model to use a new dynamical core whilst KMA continued to use the original. This means that for the 2013/14 the UKMO and KMA forecasts are from the same model with the same dynamical core whilst for the 2014/15 winter the UKMO and KMA forecasts are from the same model but with different dynamical cores. The clear improvement in forecast from the UKMO in 2014/15 can hence be attributed to the new dynamical core. For a full analysis of this improvement see Martínez-Alvarado et al. (2018).

Fig_3_blogjacob — **Figure 3:** The frequency of blocking during winter in the northern hemisphere in ERA-Interim (grey shading) and in seven-day forecasts from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), the Met Office (UKMO) and the Korean Meteorological Administration (KMA). Box plots show the spread in the ensemble forecast from each centre.

In the remainder of my PhD I aim to investigate the link between errors in forecasts of blocking with the representation of upstream cyclones. I am particularly interested to see if the parameterisation of diabatic processes (a known source of model uncertainty) could be causing the downstream error in Rossby wave amplification and blocking.

Email: j.maddison@pgr.reading.ac.uk.

References:

Rodwell, M. J., and Coauthors, 2013: Characteristics of occasional poor medium-range weather forecasts for Europe. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 94 (9), 1393–1405.

Woollings, T., and Coauthors, 2018: Blocking and its response to climate change. Current Climate Change Reports, 4 (3), 287–300.

Pfahl, S., C. Schwierz, M. Croci-Maspoli, C. Grams, and H. Wernli, 2015: Importance of latent heat release in ascending air streams for atmospheric blocking. Nature Geoscience, 8 (8), 610– 614.

Mart´ınez-Alvarado, O., E. Madonna, S. Gray, and H. Joos, 2015: A route to systematic error in forecasts of Rossby waves. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 142, 196–210.

Mart´ınez-Alvarado, O., and R. Plant, 2014: Parametrized diabatic processes in numerical simulations of an extratropical cyclone. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 140 (682), 1742–1755.

Scaife, A. A., T. Woollings, J. Knight, G. Martin, and T. Hinton, 2010: Atmospheric blocking and mean biases in climate models. Journal of Climate, 23 (23), 6143–6152.

Schiemann, R., and Coauthors, 2017: The resolution sensitivity of northern hemisphere blocking in four 25-km atmospheric global circulation models. Journal of Climate, 30 (1), 337–358.

Jung, T., and Coauthors, 2010: The ECMWF model climate: Recent progress through improved physical parametrizations. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 136 (650), 1145–1160.

Baroclinic and Barotropic Annular Modes of Variability

March 2, 2018Lina Boljka1 Comment

Email: l.boljka@pgr.reading.ac.uk

Modes of variability are climatological features that have global effects on regional climate and weather. They are identified through spatial structures and the timeseries associated with them (so-called EOF/PC analysis, which finds the largest variability of a given atmospheric field). Examples of modes of variability include El Niño Southern Oscillation, Madden-Julian Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation, Annular modes, etc. The latter are named after the “annulus” (a region bounded by two concentric circles) as they occur in the Earth’s midlatitudes (a band of atmosphere bounded by the polar and tropical regions, Fig. 1), and are the most important modes of midlatitude variability, generally representing 20-30% of the variability in a field.

Southern_Hemi_Antarctica — Figure 1: Southern Hemisphere midlatitudes (red concentric circles) as annulus, region where annular modes have the largest impacts. Source.

We know two types of annular modes: baroclinic (based on eddy kinetic energy, a proxy for eddy activity and an indicator of storm-track intensity) and barotropic (based on zonal mean zonal wind, representing the north-south shifts of the jet stream) (Fig. 2). The latter are usually referred to as Southern (SAM or Antarctic Oscillation) or Northern (NAM or Arctic Oscillation) Annular Mode (depending on the hemisphere), have generally quasi-barotropic (uniform) vertical structure, and impact the temperature variations, sea-ice distribution, and storm paths in both hemispheres with timescales of about 10 days. The former are referred to as BAM (baroclinic annular mode) and exhibit strong vertical structure associated with strong vertical wind shear (baroclinicity), and their impacts are yet to be determined (e.g. Thompson and Barnes 2014, Marshall et al. 2017). These two modes of variability are linked to the key processes of the midlatitude tropospheric dynamics that are involved in the growth (baroclinic processes) and decay (barotropic processes) of midlatitude storms. The growth stage of the midlatitude storms is conventionally associated with increase in eddy kinetic energy (EKE) and the decay stage with decrease in EKE.

ThompsonWoodworth_Fig2a_SAM_2f_BAM(1) — Figure 2: Barotropic annular mode (right), based on zonal wind (contours), associated with eddy momentum flux (shading); Baroclinic annular mode (left), based on eddy kinetic energy (contours), associated with eddy heat flux (shading). Source: Thompson and Woodworth (2014).

However, recent observational studies (e.g. Thompson and Woodworth 2014) have suggested decoupling of baroclinic and barotropic components of atmospheric variability in the Southern Hemisphere (i.e. no correlation between the BAM and SAM) and a simpler formulation of the EKE budget that only depends on eddy heat fluxes and BAM (Thompson et al. 2017). Using cross-spectrum analysis, we empirically test the validity of the suggested relationship between EKE and heat flux at different timescales (Boljka et al. 2018). Two different relationships are identified in Fig. 3: 1) a regime where EKE and eddy heat flux relationship holds well (periods longer than 10 days; intermediate timescale); and 2) a regime where this relationship breaks down (periods shorter than 10 days; synoptic timescale). For the relationship to hold (by construction), the imaginary part of the cross-spectrum must follow the angular frequency line and the real part must be constant. This is only true at the intermediate timescales. Hence, the suggested decoupling of baroclinic and barotropic components found in Thompson and Woodworth (2014) only works at intermediate timescales. This is consistent with our theoretical model (Boljka and Shepherd 2018), which predicts decoupling under synoptic temporal and spatial averaging. At synoptic timescales, processes such as barotropic momentum fluxes (closely related to the latitudinal shifts in the jet stream) contribute to the variability in EKE. This is consistent with the dynamics of storms that occur on timescales shorter than 10 days (e.g. Simmons and Hoskins 1978). This is further discussed in Boljka et al. (2018).

EKE_hflux_cross_spectrum_blog — Figure 3: Imaginary (black solid line) and Real (grey solid line) parts of cross-spectrum between EKE and eddy heat flux. Black dashed line shows the angular frequency (if the tested relationship holds, the imaginary part of cross-spectrum follows this line), the red line distinguishes between the two frequency regimes discussed in text. Source: Boljka et al. (2018).

References

Boljka, L., and T. G. Shepherd, 2018: A multiscale asymptotic theory of extratropical wave, mean-flow interaction. J. Atmos. Sci., in press.

Boljka, L., T. G. Shepherd, and M. Blackburn, 2018: On the coupling between barotropic and baroclinic modes of extratropical atmospheric variability. J. Atmos. Sci., in review.

Marshall, G. J., D. W. J. Thompson, and M. R. van den Broeke, 2017: The signature of Southern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation patterns in Antarctic precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 11,580–11,589.

Simmons, A. J., and B. J. Hoskins, 1978: The life cycles of some nonlinear baroclinic waves. J. Atmos. Sci., 35, 414–432.

Thompson, D. W. J., and E. A. Barnes, 2014: Periodic variability in the large-scale Southern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation. Science, 343, 641–645.

Thompson, D. W. J., B. R. Crow, and E. A. Barnes, 2017: Intraseasonal periodicity in the Southern Hemisphere circulation on regional spatial scales. J. Atmos. Sci., 74, 865–877.

Thompson, D. W. J., and J. D. Woodworth, 2014: Barotropic and baroclinic annular variability in the Southern Hemisphere. J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 1480–1493.

Tropical Circulation viewed as a heat engine

November 24, 2017November 24, 2017Jan KamienieckiLeave a comment

Climate scientists have a lot of insight into the factors driving weather systems in the mid-latitudes, where the rotation of the earth is an important influence. The tropics are less well served, and this can be a problem for global climate models which don’t capture many of the phenomena observed in the tropics that well.

What we do know about the tropics however is that despite significant contrasts in sea surface temperatures (Fig. 1) there is very little horizontal temperature variation in the atmosphere (Fig. 2) – because the Coriolis force (due to the Earth’s rotation) that enables this gradient in more temperate climates is not present. We believe that the large-scale circulation acts to minimise the effect these surface contrasts have higher up. This suggests a model for vertical wind which cools the air over warmer surfaces and warms it where the surface is cool, called the Weak Temperature Gradient (WTG) Approximation, that is frequently used in studying the climate in the tropics.

GrSEMtest1_SST_map2-page-001 — Fig.1 Sea surface temperatures (K) at 0Z on 1/1/2000 (ERA-Interim)

GrSEMtest1_T_map2-page-001 — Fig.2 Temperatures at 500 hPa (K) at 0Z on 1/1/2000 (ERA-Interim)

Thermodynamic ideas have been around for some 200 years. Carnot, a Frenchman worried about Britain’s industrial might underpinning its military potential(!), studied the efficiency of heat engines and showed that the maximum mechanical work generated by an engine is determined by the ratio of the temperatures at which energy enters and leaves the system. It is possible to treat climate systems as heat engines – for example Kerry Emanuel has used Carnot’s idea to estimate the pressure in the eye of a hurricane. I have been building on a recent development of these ideas by Olivier Pauluis at New York University who shows how to divide up the maximum work output of a climate heat engine into the generation of wind, the lifting of moisture and a lost component, which he calls the Gibbs penalty, which is the energetic cost of keeping the atmosphere moist. Typically, 50% of the maximum work output is gobbled up by the Gibbs penalty, 30% is the moisture lifting term and only 20% is used to generate wind.

For my PhD, I have been applying Pauluis’ ideas to a modelled system consisting of two connected tropical regions (one over a cooler surface than the other), which are connected by a circulation given by the weak temperature gradient approximation. I look at how this circulation affects the components of work done by the system. Overall there is no impact – in other words the WTG does not distort the thermodynamics of the underlying system – which is reassuring for those who use it. What is perhaps more interesting however, is that even though the WTG circulation is very weak compared to the winds that we observe in the two columns, it does as much work as is done by the cooler column – in other words its thermodynamic importance is huge. This suggests that further avenues of study may help us better express what drives the climate in the tropics.

Mountains and the Atmospheric Circulation within Models

February 10, 2017February 14, 2017Annelize van NiekerkLeave a comment

Email: a.vanniekerk@pgr.reading.ac.uk

Mountains come in many shapes and sizes and as a result their dynamic impact on the atmospheric circulation spans a continuous range of physical and temporal scales. For example, large-scale orographic features, such as the Himalayas and the Rockies, deflect the atmospheric flow and, as a result of the Earth’s rotation, generate waves downstream that can remain fixed in space for long periods of time. These are known as stationary waves (see Nigam and DeWeaver (2002) for overview). They have an impact not only on the regional hydro-climate but also on the location and strength of the mid-latitude westerlies. On smaller physical scales, orography can generate gravity waves that act to transport momentum from the surface to the upper parts of the atmosphere (see Teixeira 2014), playing a role in the mixing of chemical species within the stratosphere.

hims — Figure 1: The model resolved orography at different horizontal resolutions. From a low (climate model) resolution to a high (seasonal forecasting) resolution. Note how smooth the orography is at climate model resolution.

Figure 1 shows an example of the resolved orography at different horizontal resolutions over the Himalayas. The representation of orography within models is complicated by the fact that, unlike other parameterized processes, such as clouds and convection, that are typically totally unresolved by the model, its effects are partly resolved by the dynamics of the model and the rest is accounted for by parameterization schemes.However, many parameters within these schemes are not well constrained by observations, if at all. The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) Working Group on Numerical Experimentation (WGNE) performed an inter-model comparison focusing on the treatment of unresolved drag processes within models (Zadra et al. 2013). They found that while modelling groups generally had the same total amount of drag from various different processes, their partitioning was vastly different, as a result of the uncertainty in their formulation.

Climate models with typically low horizontal resolutions, resolve less of the Earth’s orography and are therefore more dependent on parameterization schemes. They also have large model biases in their climatological circulations when compared with observations, as well as exhibiting a similarly large spread about these biases. What is more, their projected circulation response to climate change is highly uncertain. It is therefore worth investigating the processes that contribute towards the spread in their climatological circulations and circulation response to climate change. The representation of orographic processes seem vital for the accurate simulation of the atmospheric circulation and yet, as discussed above, we find that there is a lot of uncertainty in their treatment within models that may be contributing to model uncertainty. These uncertainties in the orographic treatment come from two main sources:

Model Resolution: Models with different horizontal resolutions will have different resolved orography.
Parameterization Formulation: Orographic drag parameterization formulation varies between models.

The issue of model resolution was investigated in our recent study, van Niekerk et al. (2016). We showed that, in the Met Office Unified Model (MetUM) at climate model resolutions, the decrease in parameterized orographic drag that occurs with increasing horizontal resolution was not balanced by an increase in resolved orographic drag. The inability of the model to maintain an equivalent total (resolved plus parameterized) orographic drag across resolutions resulted in an increase in systematic model biases at lower resolutions identifiable over short timescales. This shows not only that the modelled circulation is non-robust to changes in resolution but also that the parameterization scheme is not performing in the same way as the resolved orography. We have highlighted the impact of parameterized and resolved orographic drag on model fidelity and demonstrated that there is still a lot of uncertainty in the way we treat unresolved orography within models. This further motivates the need to constrain the theory and parameters within orographic drag parameterization schemes.

References

Nigam, S., and E. DeWeaver, 2002: Stationary Waves (Orographic and Thermally Forced). Academic Press, Elsevier Science, London, 2121–2137 pp., doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-382225-3. 00381-9.

Teixeira MAC, 2014: The physics of orographic gravity wave drag. Front. Phys. 2:43. doi:10.3389/fphy.2014.00043 http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphy.2014.00043/full

Zadra, A., and Coauthors, 2013: WGNE Drag Project. URL:http://collaboration.cmc.ec.gc.ca/science/rpn/drag_project/

van Niekerk, A., T. G. Shepherd, S. B. Vosper, and S. Webster, 2016: Sensitivity of resolved and parametrized surface drag to changes in resolution and parametrization. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 142 (699), 2300–2313, doi:10.1002/qj.2821.

Stationary Orographic Rainbands

December 8, 2016Carly Wright1 Comment

Email: c.j.wright@pgr.reading.ac.uk

Small-scale rainbands often form downwind of mountainous terrain. Although relatively small in scale (a few tens of km across by up to ~100 km in length), these often poorly forecast bands can cause localised flooding as they can be associated with intense precipitation over several hours due to the anchoring effect of orography (Barrett et al., 2013). Figure 1 shows a flash flood caused by a rainband situated over Cockermouth in 2009. In some regions of southern France orographic banded convection can contribute 40% of the total rainfall (Cosma et al., 2002). Rainbands occur in various locations and under different synoptic regimes and environmental conditions making them difficult to examine their properties and determine their occurrence in a systematic way (Kirshbaum et al. 2007a,b, Fairman et al. 2016). My PhD considers the ability of current operational forecast models to represent these bands and the environmental controls on their formation.

blogfig1 — Figure 1: Flash flood event caused by a rainband situated over Cockermouth, Cumbria, UK in 2009

What is a rainband?

A cloud and precipitation structure associated with an area of rainfall which is significantly elongated
Stationary (situated over the same location) with continuous triggering
Can form in response to moist, unstable air following over complex terrain
Narrow in width ~2-10 km with varying length scales from 10 – 100’s km

blogfig2 — Figure 2: Schematic showing the difference between cellular and banded convection

To examine the ability of current operational forecast models to represent these bands a case study was chosen which was first introduced by Barrett, et al. (2016). The radar observations during the event showed a clear band along The Great Glen Fault, Scotland (Figure 3). However, Barrett, et al. (2016) concluded that neither the operational forecast or the operational ensemble forecast captured the nature of the rainband. For more information on ensemble models see one of our previous blog posts by David Flack Showers: How well can we predict them?.

blogfig3 — Figure 3: Radar observations of precipitation accumulation over a six hour period (between 3-9 am) showing a rainband located over The Great Glen Fault, Scotland on 29 December 2012.

Localised convergence and increased convective available potential energy along the fault supported the formation of the rainband. To determine the effect of model resolution on the model’s representation of the rainband, a forecast was performed with the horizontal gird spacing decreased to 500 m from 1.5 km. In this forecast a rainband formed in the correct location which generated precipitation accumulations close to those observed, but with a time displacement. The robustness of this forecast skill improvement is being assessed by performing an ensemble of these convection-permitting simulations. Results suggest that accurate representation of these mesoscale rainbands requires resolutions higher than those used operationally by national weather centres.

Idealised numerical simulations have been used to investigate the environmental conditions leading to the formation of these rainbands. The theoretical dependence of the partitioning of dry flow over and around mountains on the non-dimensional mountain height is well understood. For this project I examine the effect of this dependence on rainband formation in a moist environment. Preliminary analysis of the results show that the characteristics of rainbands are controlled by more than just the non-dimensional mountain height, even though this parameter is known to be sufficient to determine flow behaviour relative to mountains.

This work has been funded by the Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) under the project PREcipitation STructures over Orography (PRESTO), for more project information click here.

References

Barrett, A. I., S. L. Gray, D. J. Kirshbaum, N. M. Roberts, D. M. Schultz, and J. G. Fairman, 2015: Synoptic Versus Orographic Control on Stationary Convective Banding. Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 141, 1101–1113, doi:10.1002/qj.2409.

— 2016: The Utility of Convection-Permitting Ensembles for the Prediction of Stationary Convective Bands. Mon. Wea. Rev., 144, 10931114, doi:10.1175/MWR-D-15-0148.1.

Cosma, S., E. Richard, and F. Minsicloux, 2002: The Role of Small-Scale Orographic Features in the Spatial Distribution of Precipitation. Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 128, 75–92, doi:10.1256/00359000260498798.

Fairman, J. G., D. M. Schultz, D. J. Kirshbaum, S. L. Gray, and A. I. Barrett, 2016: Climatology of Banded Precipitation over the Contiguous United States. Mon. Wea. Rev., 144,4553–4568, doi: 10.1175/MWR-D-16-0015.1.

Kirshbaum, D. J., G. H. Bryan, R. Rotunno, and D. R. Durran, 2007a: The Triggering of Orographic Rainbands by Small-Scale Topography. J. Atmos. Sci., 64, 1530–1549, doi:10.1175/JAS3924.1.

Kirshbaum, D. J., R. Rotunno, and G. H. Bryan, 2007b: The Spacing of Orographic Rainbands Triggered by Small-Scale Topography. J. Atmos. Sci., 64, 4222–4245, doi:10.1175/2007JAS2335.1.

Showers: How well can we predict them?

November 24, 2016David Flack1 Comment

Email: d.l.a.flack@pgr.reading.ac.uk

Showers are one of the many examples of convective events experienced in the UK, other such events include thunderstorms, supercells and squall lines. These type of events form most often in the summer but can also form over the sea in the winter. They form because the atmosphere is unstable, i.e. warm air over a cooler surface, this results in the creation of thermals. If there is enough water vapour in the air and the thermal reaches high enough the water vapour will condense and eventually form a convective cloud. Convective events produce intense, often very localised, rainfall, which can result in flash floods, e.g. Boscastle 2004.

boscastle04 — Boscastle flood 2004 – BBC News

Flash floods are very difficult to predict, unlike flood events that happen from the autumnal and winter storms e.g. floods from Storms Desmond and Frank last winter, and the current floods (20-22 November). So often there is limited lead time for emergency services to react to flash flood events. One of the main reasons why flash floods are difficult to predict is the association with convective events because these events only last for a few hours (6 hours at the longest) and only affect a very small area.

One of the aspects of forecasting the weather that researchers look into is the predictability of certain events. My PhD considers the predictability of convective events within different situations in the UK.

The different situations I am considering are generally split into two regimes: convective quasi-equilibrium and non-equilibrium convection.

In convective quasi-equilibrium any production of instability in the atmosphere is balanced by its release (Arakawa and Schubert, 1974). This results in scattered showers, which could turn up anywhere in a region where there is large-scale ascent. This is typical of areas behind fronts and to the left of jet stream exit regions. Because there are no obvious triggers (like flow over mountains or cliffs) you can’t pin-point the exact location of a shower. We often find ourselves in this sort of situation in April, hence April showers.

On the other hand in non-equilibrium convection the instability is blocked from being released so energy in the system builds-up over time. If this inhibiting factor is overcome all the instability can be released at once and will result in ‘explosive’ convection (Emanuel, 1994). Overcoming the inhibiting factor usually takes place locally, such as a sea breeze or flow up mountains, etc. so these give distinct triggers and help tie the location of these events down. These are the type of situations that occur frequently over continents in the spring and often result in severe weather.

It’s useful having these regimes to categorise events to help determine what happens in the forecasts of different situations but only if we understand a little bit about their characteristics. For the initial part of my work I considered the regimes over the British Isles and found that we mainly have convective events in convective quasi-equilibrium (showers) – on average roughly 85% of convective events in the summer are in this regime (Flack et al., 2016). Therefore it is pertinent to ask how well can we predict showers?

To see how well we can predict showers, and other types of convection, the forecast itself is examined. This is done by adding small-scale variability into the model, throughout the forecast, to determine what would happen if the starting conditions (or any other time in the model) changed. This is run a number of times to create an ensemble.

Using ensembles we can determine the uncertainty in the weather forecast, this can either be in terms of spatial positioning, timing or intensity of the event. My work has mainly considered the spatial positioning and intensity of the convection, and is to be submitted shortly to Monthly Weather Review. The intensity in my ensemble shows similar variation in both regimes, suggesting that there are times when the amount of rainfall predicted can be spot on. Most of the interesting results appear to be linked to the location of the events. The ensembles for the non-equilibrium cases generally show agreement between location of the events, so we can be fairly confident about their location (so here your weather app would be very good). On the other hand, when it comes to showers there is no consistency between the different forecasts so they could occur anywhere (so when your app suggests showers be careful – you may or may not get one).

So I’ll answer my question that I originally posed with another question: What do you want from a forecast? If the answer to this question is “I want to know if there is a chance of rain at my location” then yes we can predict that you might get caught by a shower. If on the other hand your answer is “I want exact details, for my exact location, e.g. is there going to be a shower at 15:01 on Saturday at Stonehenge yes or no?” Then the answer is, although we are improving forecasts, we can’t give that accurate a forecast when it comes to scattered showers, simply because of their very nature.

With forecasts improving all the time and the fact that they are looking more realistic it does not mean that every detail of a forecast is perfect. As with forecasting in all areas (from politics to economy) things can take an unexpected turn so caution is advised. When it comes to the original question of showers then it’s always best to be prepared.

This work has been funded by the Natural Environmental Research Council under the project Flooding From Intense Rainfall, for more project details and project specific blogs visit: www.met.reading.ac.uk/flooding

References

Arakawa, A. and W. H. Schubert, 1974: Interaction of a Cumulus Cloud Ensemble with the Large-Scale Environment, Part I. J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 674-701.

Emanuel, K. A., 1994: Atmospheric convection, Oxford University Press, 580 pp.

Flack, D. L. A., R. S. Plant, S.L. Gray, H. W. Lean, C. Keil and G. C. Craig, 2016: Characterisation of Convective Regimes over the British Isles. Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 142, 1541-1553.

The effect of local topography on severe tropical convective rainfall development.

September 26, 2016September 26, 2016Fadzil Mohd NorLeave a comment

Email: m.f.f.b.mohdnor@pgr.reading.ac.uk

The occurrence of severe convective rainfall is common over the tropical rainforest region. While the basic mechanism of the development of severe convective rainfall over the tropics is well understood in previous studies, the effect of local topography may yield a unique development process.

One part of my PhD project is to look at how local topography modifies severe rainfall events over the western Peninsular Malaysia. This was examined via a case study of severe rainfall that took place on 2^nd May 2012. On that day, heavy rainfall caused flash floods and landslides over Klang Valley (red box in Fig. 1). Although the total rainfall on the 2^nd May was above the Apr-May average, it was not extremely high.

fig1_geography_malaysia

Fig. 1. The study area, specifically over the western Peninsular Malaysia. The red box is Klang valley area.

Looking at observational data was not enough to understand the processes involved in the development of severe rainfall event on 2^nd May 2012 and therefore a simulation study was conducted using the UK Met Office Unified Model (1.5km horizontal resolution).

One theory which could explain the rainfall event on 2^nd May 2012 is the influence of a series of rainfall events that developed earlier. There were rainfall events over the Peninsular Malaysia and Sumatra Island in the early evening of 1^st May 2012 along the Titiwangsa mountains (Peninsular Malaysia) and Barisan Mountains (Sumatra Island). These rainfall events influenced the development of rainfall over the Malacca Strait overnight. The rainfall event over the strait strengthened by the morning of 2^nd May. In the afternoon of 2^nd May, the western peninsula had the right atmospheric conditions to develop convective rainfall, and the rainfall over the strait influenced the intensification of rainfall over the western peninsula. Thus, we believe that the local topography has a large impact on the development of the 2^nd May rainfall event.

So, how do we test the hypothesis? One way is to perform sensitivity experiments. Four sensitivity experiments were conducted, modifying the orography of both the peninsula and Sumatra, and removing Sumatra altogether (Fig. 2).

fig2_experiments_all

Fig. 2. Sensitivity experiments on the local orography and Sumatra Island. Control run on the first panel, flatPM (flat peninsula to sea level), flatSI (flat Sumatra), flatALL(both peninsula and Sumatra are flat), and noSI (Sumatra is removed)

The results show that orography influenced and modified the development of late evening rainfall over both landmasses on both days. On 2^nd May, total rainfall in the experiments are as follows:
1. flatPM : Klang valley received less rainfall than control,
2. flatSI : Klang valley received less rainfall than control but more than flatPM,
3. flatALL : Klang valley received more rainfall than control, flatPM and flatSI experiments,
4. noSI : Klang valley received triple the amount of rainfall of the control and other experiments.
These results hint the complex relationship between local topography and rainfall. Moreover, both the peninsula and Sumatra are important for the development of the morning rainfall over the Malacca Strait, regardless of the orographic variability.

Whilst looking at one case study is not enough to draw a general conclusion, this will definitely be a step forward on broadening the information that we already have. A more robust conclusion would require further studies to be taken.

(This PhD project is supervised by Pete Inness and Christopher Holloway, and funded by MARA Malaysia).

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: