The benefits of the Met Office variable resolution NWP model for forecasting convection

Meteorological Applications

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 417-426

  Tang, Yongming ^a,c   Lean, Humphrey W ^a   Bornemann, Jorge ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

^b not available   (United Kingdom)

^c EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR MEDIUM RANGE WEATHER FORECASTS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Convection; Forecasting; Variable resolution model

Indexed keywords

FORECASTING;

COARSER RESOLUTION MODEL; FINE RESOLUTION; HIGH-RESOLUTION MODELS; HIGH-RESOLUTION NWP; LOWER RESOLUTION; UNIFIED MODELING; VARIABLE RESOLUTION; VARIABLE RESOLUTION MODELING;

HEAT CONVECTION;

ATMOSPHERIC CONVECTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FORECASTING METHOD; MODEL; MODEL VALIDATION; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84889085555     PISSN: 13504827     EISSN: 14698080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/met.1300     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Alpert P, Krichak SO, Krishnamurti TN, Tsidulko M. 1996. The relative roles of lateral boundaries, initial conditions, and topography in mesoscale simulations of lee cyclogenesis. J. Appl. Meteorol. 35: 1091-1099.
2. Baumhefner DP, Perkey DJ. 1982. Evaluation of lateral boundary errors in a limited-domain model. Tellus 34: 409-428.
3. Brown AR, Derbyshire SH, Mason PJ. 1994. Large-eddy simulation of stable atmospheric boundary layers with a revised stochastic subgrid model. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 120: 1485-1512.
4. Côté J, Gravel S, Methot A, Patoine A, Staniforth A, Roch M. 1998a. The operational CMC-MRB global environmental Multiscale (GEM) model. Part I: design consideration and formulation. Mon. Weather Rev. 126: 1373-1395.
5. Côté J, Gravel S, Methot A, Patoine A, Staniforth A, Roch M. 1998b. The operational CMC-MRB global environmental Multiscale (GEM) model. Part II: results. Mon. Weather Rev. 126: 1397-1418.
6. Courtier P, Freyder C, Geleyn JF, Rabier F, Rochas M. 1991. The ARPEGE project at Mto-France. Proceedings of the ECMWF Seminar on Numerical Methods in Atmospheric Models, 9-13 September 1991, Vol. II; 192-231. ECMWF: Reading, UK.
7. Cullen MJP. 1993. The unified forecast/climate model. Meteorol. Mag. 122: 81-94.
8. Davies HC. 1983. Limitations of some common lateral boundary schemes used in regional NWP models. Mon. Weather Rev. 111: 1002-1012.
9. Davies T, Cullen MJP, Malcolm AJ, Mawson MH, Staniforth A, White AA, Wood N. 2005. A new dynamical core for the Met Office's global and regional modelling of the atmosphere. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 608: 1759-1782.
10. Edwards JM, Slingo A. 1996. Studies with a flexible new radiation code. I: Choosing a configuration for a large-scale model. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 122: 689-719.
11. Errico R, Vukicevic T, Raeder K. 1993. Comparison of initial and lateral boundary condition sensitivity for a limited-area model. Tellus 45A: 539-557.
12. Essery R, Best M, Cox P. 2001. MOSES 2.2 technical documentation. Hadley Centre Technical Report No. 30. Met Office Hadley Centre: Bracknell, UK.
13. Fox-Rabinovitz M. 2000. Simulation of anomalous regional climate events with a variable-resolution stretch-grid GCM. J. Geophys. Res. 105(29):635-629, 645.
14. Fox-Rabinovitz M, Stenchikov G, Suarez M, Takacs L. 1997. A finite-difference GCM dynamical core with variable resolution stretched grid. Mon. Weather Rev. 125: 2943-2968.
15. Gregory D, Rowntree PR. 1990. A mass flux scheme with representation of cloud ensemble characteristics and stability-dependent closure. Mon. Weather Rev. 118: 1483-1506.
16. Laprise R, de Elia R, Caya D, Biner S, Lucas-Picher P, Diaconescu E, Leduc M, Alexandru A, Separovic L, Canadian Network for Regional Climate Modelling and Diagnostics. 2008. Challenging some tenets of regional climate modelling. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 100: 3-22.
17. Lean HW, Clark PA, Dixon M, Roberts NM, Fitch A, Forbes R, Halliwell C. 2008. Characteristics of high-resolution versions of Met Office Unified Model for forecasting convection over the United Kingdom. Mon. Weather Rev. 136: 3408-3424.
18. Lock AP, Brown AR, Bush MR, Martin GM, Smith RNB. 2000. A new boundary layer mixing scheme. Part 1: scheme description and single-column model tests. Mon. Weather Rev. 128: 3187-3199.
19. Marbaix P, Gallée H, Brasseur O, van Ypersele JP. 2003. Lateral boundary conditions in regional climate models: a detailed study of the relaxation procedure. Mon. Weather Rev. 131: 461-479.
20. Nutter P, Stensrud D, Xue M. 2004. Effects of coarsely resolved and temporally interpolated lateral boundary conditions on dispersion of limited-area ensemble forecasts. Mon. Weather Rev. 132: 2358-2377.
21. Paegle J, Yang Q, Wang M. 1997. Predictability in limited area and global models. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 63: 53-69.
22. Robert A, Yakimiw E. 1986. Identification and elimination of an inflow boundary computational solution in limited area model integrations. Atmos. Ocean 24: 369-385.
23. Roberts NM. 2003. The impact of a change to the use of the convection scheme to high-resolution simulations of convective events. Met Office Technical Report 407, 30 pp. Met Office: Exeter, UK.
24. Roberts NM, Lean HW. 2008. Scale-selective verification of rainfall accumulations from high resolution forecasts of convective events. Mon. Weather Rev. 136: 78-97.
25. Smith R, Blyth E, Finch J, Goodchild S, Hall R, Madry S. 1996. Soil state and surface hydrology diagnosis based on MOSES in the Met Office Nimrod nowcasting system. Met. Apps. 13: 89-109.
26. Staniforth A. 1997. Regional modelling: a theoretical discussion. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 63: 15-29.
27. Vichnevetsky R. 1986. Invariance theorems concerning reflection at numerical boundaries. J. Comput. Phys. 63: 268-282.
28. Warner TT, Peterson RA, Treadon RE. 1997. A tutorial on lateral boundary conditions as a basic and potentially serious limitation to regional numerical weather prediction. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 78: 2599-2617.
29. Wilson DR, Ballard SP. 1999. A microphysically based precipitation scheme for the UK Meteorological Office Unified Model. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 125: 1607-1636.