Representativity of in situ precipitation measurements - a case study for the LITFASS area in North-Eastern Germany

In situ precipitation measurements can extremely differ in space and time. Taking into account the limited spatial–temporal representativity and the uncertainty of a single station is important for validating mesoscale numerical model results as well as for interpreting remote sensing data. In situ precipitation data from a high resolution network in North-Eastern Germany are analysed to determine their temporal and spatial representativity. For the dry year 2003 precipitation amounts were available with 10 min resolution from 14 rain gauges distributed in an area of 25 km 25 km around the Meteorological Observatory Lindenberg (Richard-Aßmann Observatory). Our analysis reveals that short-term (up to 6 h) precipitation events dominate (94% of all events) and that the distribution is skewed with a high frequency of very low precipitation amounts. Long-lasting precipitation events are rare (6% of all precipitation events), but account for nearly 50% of the annual precipitation. The spatial representativity of a single-site measurement increases slightly for longer measurement intervals and the variability decreases. Hourly precipitation amounts are representative for an area of 11 km 11 km. Daily precipitation amounts appear to be reliable with an uncertainty factor of 3.3 for an area of 25 km 25 km, and weekly and monthly precipitation amounts have uncertainties of a factor of 2 and 1.4 when compared to 25 km 25 km mean values.

Representativity error for temperature and humidity using the Met Office high-resolution model

The observation-error covariance matrix used in data assimilation contains contributions from instrument errors, representativity errors and errors introduced by the approximated observation operator. Forward model errors arise when the observation operator does not correctly model the observations or when observations can resolve spatial scales that the model cannot. Previous work to estimate the observation-error covariance matrix for particular observing instruments has shown that it contains signifcant correlations. In particular, correlations for humidity data are more significant than those for temperature. However it is not known what proportion of these correlations can be attributed to the representativity errors. In this article we apply an existing method for calculating representativity error, previously applied to an idealised system, to NWP data. We calculate horizontal errors of representativity for temperature and humidity using data from the Met Office high-resolution UK variable resolution model. Our results show that errors of representativity are correlated and more significant for specific humidity than temperature. We also find that representativity error varies with height. This suggests that the assimilation scheme may be improved if these errors are explicitly included in a data assimilation scheme. This article is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.

Ensemble forecasts of a flood-producing storm: comparison of the influence of model-state perturbations and parameter modifications

High-resolution ensemble simulations (Δx = 1 km) are performed with the Met Office Unified Model for the Boscastle (Cornwall, UK) flash-flooding event of 16 August 2004. Forecast uncertainties arising from imperfections in the forecast model are analysed by comparing the simulation results produced by two types of perturbation strategy. Motivated by the meteorology of the event, one type of perturbation alters relevant physics choices or parameter settings in the model's parametrization schemes. The other type of perturbation is designed to account for representativity error in the boundary-layer parametrization. It makes direct changes to the model state and provides a lower bound against which to judge the spread produced by other uncertainties. The Boscastle has genuine skill at scales of approximately 60 km and an ensemble spread which can be estimated to within ∼ 10% with only eight members. Differences between the model-state perturbation and physics modification strategies are discussed, the former being more important for triggering and the latter for subsequent cell development, including the average internal structure of convective cells. Despite such differences, the spread in rainfall evaluated at skilful scales is shown to be only weakly sensitive to the perturbation strategy. This suggests that relatively simple strategies for treating model uncertainty may be sufficient for practical, convective-scale ensemble forecasting.