Analysis of the tropospheric water distribution during FIRE 2
The Penn State/NCAR mesoscale model, as adapted for use at ARC, was used as a testbed for the development and validation of cloud models for use in General Circulation Models (GCM's). This modeling approach also allows us to intercompare the predictions of the various cloud schemes within the same dynamical framework. The use of the PSU/NCAR mesoscale model also allows us to compare our results with FIRE-II (First International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project Regional Experiment) observations, instead of climate statistics. Though a promising approach, our work to date revealed several difficulties. First, the model by design is limited in spatial coverage and is only run for 12 to 48 hours at a time. Hence the quality of the simulation will depend heavily on the initial conditions. The poor quality of upper-tropospheric measurements of water vapor is well known and the situation is particularly bad for mid-latitude winter since the coupling with the surface is less direct than in summer so that relying on the model to spin-up a reasonable moisture field is not always successful. Though one of the most common atmospheric constituents, water vapor is relatively difficult to measure accurately, especially operationally over large areas. The standard NWS sondes have little sensitivity at the low temperatures where cirrus form and the data from the GOES 6.7 micron channel is difficult to quantify. For this reason, the goals of FIRE Cirrus II included characterizing the three-dimensional distribution of water vapor and clouds. In studying the data from FIRE Cirrus II, it was found that no single special observation technique provides accurate regional distributions of water vapor. The Raman lidar provides accurate measurements, but only at the Hub, for levels up to 10 km, and during nighttime hours. The CLASS sondes are more sensitive to moisture at low temperatures than are the NWS sondes, but the four stations only cover an area of two hundred kilometers on a side. The aircraft give the most accurate measurements of water vapor, but are limited in spatial and temporal coverage. This problem is partly alleviated by the use of the MAPS analyses, a four-dimensional data assimilation system that combines the previous 3-hour forecast with the available observations, but its upper-level moisture analyses are sometimes deficient because of the vapor measurement problem. An attempt was made to create a consistent four-dimensional description of the water vapor distribution during the second IFO by subjectively combining data from a variety of sources, including MAPS analyses, CLASS sondes, SPECTRE sondes, NWS sondes, GOES satellite analyses, radars, lidars, and microwave radiometers.