(GO)2-SIM: A GCM-oriented ground-observation forward-simulator framework for objective evaluation of cloud and precipitation phase

Katia Lamer, Ann M. Fridlind, Andrew S. Ackerman, Pavlos Kollias, Eugene E. Clothiaux, Maxwell Kelley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

General circulation model (GCM) evaluation using ground-based observations is complicated by inconsistencies in hydrometeor and phase definitions. Here we describe (GO)2-SIM, a forward simulator designed for objective hydrometeor-phase evaluation, and assess its performance over the North Slope of Alaska using a 1-year GCM simulation. For uncertainty assessment, 18 empirical relationships are used to convert model grid-average hydrometeor (liquid and ice, cloud, and precipitation) water contents to zenith polarimetric micropulse lidar and Ka-band Doppler radar measurements, producing an ensemble of 576 forward-simulation realizations. Sensor limitations are represented in forward space to objectively remove from consideration model grid cells with undetectable hydrometeor mixing ratios, some of which may correspond to numerical noise. Phase classification in forward space is complicated by the inability of sensors to measure ice and liquid signals distinctly. However, signatures exist in lidar-radar space such that thresholds on observables can be objectively estimated and related to hydrometeor phase. The proposed phase-classification technique leads to misclassification in fewer than 8 % of hydrometeor-containing grid cells. Such misclassifications arise because, while the radar is capable of detecting mixed-phase conditions, it can mistake water- for ice-dominated layers. However, applying the same classification algorithm to forward-simulated and observed fields should generate hydrometeor-phase statistics with similar uncertainty. Alternatively, choosing to disregard how sensors define hydrometeor phase leads to frequency of occurrence discrepancies of up to 40 %. So, while hydrometeor-phase maps determined in forward space are very different from model reality they capture the information sensors can provide and thereby enable objective model evaluation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)4195-4214
Number of pages20
JournalGeoscientific Model Development
Volume11
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 16 2018

Fingerprint

simulator
general circulation model
Simulator
Simulators
sensor
Evaluation
ice
lidar
Ice
Sensors
radar
Optical radar
Radar
liquid
Model Evaluation
Sensor
Doppler radar
Misclassification
Lidar
mixing ratio

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Modeling and Simulation
  • Earth and Planetary Sciences(all)

Cite this

Lamer, Katia ; Fridlind, Ann M. ; Ackerman, Andrew S. ; Kollias, Pavlos ; Clothiaux, Eugene E. ; Kelley, Maxwell. / (GO)2-SIM : A GCM-oriented ground-observation forward-simulator framework for objective evaluation of cloud and precipitation phase. In: Geoscientific Model Development. 2018 ; Vol. 11, No. 10. pp. 4195-4214.
@article{a54731affbbb46a1b700156d13a9ef46,
title = "(GO)2-SIM: A GCM-oriented ground-observation forward-simulator framework for objective evaluation of cloud and precipitation phase",
abstract = "General circulation model (GCM) evaluation using ground-based observations is complicated by inconsistencies in hydrometeor and phase definitions. Here we describe (GO)2-SIM, a forward simulator designed for objective hydrometeor-phase evaluation, and assess its performance over the North Slope of Alaska using a 1-year GCM simulation. For uncertainty assessment, 18 empirical relationships are used to convert model grid-average hydrometeor (liquid and ice, cloud, and precipitation) water contents to zenith polarimetric micropulse lidar and Ka-band Doppler radar measurements, producing an ensemble of 576 forward-simulation realizations. Sensor limitations are represented in forward space to objectively remove from consideration model grid cells with undetectable hydrometeor mixing ratios, some of which may correspond to numerical noise. Phase classification in forward space is complicated by the inability of sensors to measure ice and liquid signals distinctly. However, signatures exist in lidar-radar space such that thresholds on observables can be objectively estimated and related to hydrometeor phase. The proposed phase-classification technique leads to misclassification in fewer than 8 {\%} of hydrometeor-containing grid cells. Such misclassifications arise because, while the radar is capable of detecting mixed-phase conditions, it can mistake water- for ice-dominated layers. However, applying the same classification algorithm to forward-simulated and observed fields should generate hydrometeor-phase statistics with similar uncertainty. Alternatively, choosing to disregard how sensors define hydrometeor phase leads to frequency of occurrence discrepancies of up to 40 {\%}. So, while hydrometeor-phase maps determined in forward space are very different from model reality they capture the information sensors can provide and thereby enable objective model evaluation.",
author = "Katia Lamer and Fridlind, {Ann M.} and Ackerman, {Andrew S.} and Pavlos Kollias and Clothiaux, {Eugene E.} and Maxwell Kelley",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
day = "16",
doi = "10.5194/gmd-11-4195-2018",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "4195--4214",
journal = "Geoscientific Model Development",
issn = "1991-959X",
publisher = "Copernicus Gesellschaft mbH",
number = "10",

}

(GO)2-SIM : A GCM-oriented ground-observation forward-simulator framework for objective evaluation of cloud and precipitation phase. / Lamer, Katia; Fridlind, Ann M.; Ackerman, Andrew S.; Kollias, Pavlos; Clothiaux, Eugene E.; Kelley, Maxwell.

In: Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 11, No. 10, 16.10.2018, p. 4195-4214.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - (GO)2-SIM

T2 - A GCM-oriented ground-observation forward-simulator framework for objective evaluation of cloud and precipitation phase

AU - Lamer, Katia

AU - Fridlind, Ann M.

AU - Ackerman, Andrew S.

AU - Kollias, Pavlos

AU - Clothiaux, Eugene E.

AU - Kelley, Maxwell

PY - 2018/10/16

Y1 - 2018/10/16

N2 - General circulation model (GCM) evaluation using ground-based observations is complicated by inconsistencies in hydrometeor and phase definitions. Here we describe (GO)2-SIM, a forward simulator designed for objective hydrometeor-phase evaluation, and assess its performance over the North Slope of Alaska using a 1-year GCM simulation. For uncertainty assessment, 18 empirical relationships are used to convert model grid-average hydrometeor (liquid and ice, cloud, and precipitation) water contents to zenith polarimetric micropulse lidar and Ka-band Doppler radar measurements, producing an ensemble of 576 forward-simulation realizations. Sensor limitations are represented in forward space to objectively remove from consideration model grid cells with undetectable hydrometeor mixing ratios, some of which may correspond to numerical noise. Phase classification in forward space is complicated by the inability of sensors to measure ice and liquid signals distinctly. However, signatures exist in lidar-radar space such that thresholds on observables can be objectively estimated and related to hydrometeor phase. The proposed phase-classification technique leads to misclassification in fewer than 8 % of hydrometeor-containing grid cells. Such misclassifications arise because, while the radar is capable of detecting mixed-phase conditions, it can mistake water- for ice-dominated layers. However, applying the same classification algorithm to forward-simulated and observed fields should generate hydrometeor-phase statistics with similar uncertainty. Alternatively, choosing to disregard how sensors define hydrometeor phase leads to frequency of occurrence discrepancies of up to 40 %. So, while hydrometeor-phase maps determined in forward space are very different from model reality they capture the information sensors can provide and thereby enable objective model evaluation.

AB - General circulation model (GCM) evaluation using ground-based observations is complicated by inconsistencies in hydrometeor and phase definitions. Here we describe (GO)2-SIM, a forward simulator designed for objective hydrometeor-phase evaluation, and assess its performance over the North Slope of Alaska using a 1-year GCM simulation. For uncertainty assessment, 18 empirical relationships are used to convert model grid-average hydrometeor (liquid and ice, cloud, and precipitation) water contents to zenith polarimetric micropulse lidar and Ka-band Doppler radar measurements, producing an ensemble of 576 forward-simulation realizations. Sensor limitations are represented in forward space to objectively remove from consideration model grid cells with undetectable hydrometeor mixing ratios, some of which may correspond to numerical noise. Phase classification in forward space is complicated by the inability of sensors to measure ice and liquid signals distinctly. However, signatures exist in lidar-radar space such that thresholds on observables can be objectively estimated and related to hydrometeor phase. The proposed phase-classification technique leads to misclassification in fewer than 8 % of hydrometeor-containing grid cells. Such misclassifications arise because, while the radar is capable of detecting mixed-phase conditions, it can mistake water- for ice-dominated layers. However, applying the same classification algorithm to forward-simulated and observed fields should generate hydrometeor-phase statistics with similar uncertainty. Alternatively, choosing to disregard how sensors define hydrometeor phase leads to frequency of occurrence discrepancies of up to 40 %. So, while hydrometeor-phase maps determined in forward space are very different from model reality they capture the information sensors can provide and thereby enable objective model evaluation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054965824&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85054965824&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5194/gmd-11-4195-2018

DO - 10.5194/gmd-11-4195-2018

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85054965824

VL - 11

SP - 4195

EP - 4214

JO - Geoscientific Model Development

JF - Geoscientific Model Development

SN - 1991-959X

IS - 10

ER -