The Impact of Microphysical Schemes on Intensity and Track of Hurricane
During the past decade, both research and operational numerical weather prediction models [e.g. Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF)] have started using more complex microphysical schemes originally developed for high-resolution cloud resolving models (CRMs) with a 1-2 km or less horizontal resolutions. The WRF is a next-generation meso-scale forecast model and assimilation system that has incorporated a modern software framework, advanced dynamics, numeric and data assimilation techniques, a multiple moveable nesting capability, and improved physical packages. The WRF model can be used for a wide range of applications, from idealized research to operational forecasting, with an emphasis on horizontal grid sizes in the range of 1-10 km. The current WRF includes several different microphysics options. At Goddard, four different cloud microphysics schemes (warm rain only, two-class of ice, two three-class of ice with either graupel or hail) are implemented into the WRF. The performances of these schemes have been compared to those from other WRF microphysics scheme options for an Atlantic hurricane case. In addition, a brief review and comparison on the previous modeling studies on the impact of microphysics schemes and microphysical processes on intensity and track of hurricane will be presented. Generally, almost all modeling studies found that the microphysics schemes did not have major impacts on track forecast, but did have more effect on the intensity. All modeling studies found that the simulated hurricane has rapid deepening and/or intensification for the warm rain-only case. It is because all hydrometeors were very large raindrops, and they fell out quickly at and near the eye-wall region. This would hydrostatically produce the lowest pressure. In addition, these modeling studies suggested that the simulated hurricane becomes unrealistically strong by removing the evaporative cooling of cloud droplets and melting of ice particles. This is due to the much weaker downdraft simulated. However, there are many differences between different modeling studies and these differences were identified and discussed.