A comparison of 3D model results with observations for an isolated CCOPE thunderstorm

Summary This paper is concerned with the simulation of deep convection for the CCOPE 19 July 1981 case study. Clark's three-dimensional (3D) cloud model modified to use the bulk water parameterization scheme of Lin et al. has been used in the simulation of the CCOPE 19 July 1981 case in coarse mesh, fine mesh, and interactive grid nested schemes, respectively. Comparisons with observations show this 3D grid nested cloud model is capable of both capturing both the dynamic and microphysical properties of the cloud.In the nested grid fine mesh model simulation, the timing and mode of cloud growth, the diameter of liquid cloud, the cloud top rate of rise, the maximum cloud water content, and the altitude of first radar echo are consistent with observations. The simulated thunderstorm begins to dissipate, after precipitation reaches the ground as indicated by the decreasing values of maximum updraft and maximum liquid cloud water content, and ends as a precipitating anvil as was observed in the actual thunderstorm. The model precipitation developed through ice phase processes consistent with the analysis of observations from the actual thunderstorm.Qualitative comparisons of the actual radar RHIs with simulated reflectively patterns from the 3D model show remarkable similarity, especially after the mature stage is reached. Features of the actual RHI patterns, such as the weak echo region, upshear anvil bulge, strong upwind reflectivity gradients, and the upwind outflow region near the surface are reproduced in the simulation. Comparison of the actual radar PPIs with horizontal cross sections of radar reflectivity simulated by the 3D model, however, show modest differences in the storm size with the 3D simulated thunderstorm being 1–2 km longer in the west-east direction than the actual thunderstorm. The model-predicted maximum updraft speed is smaller than the 2D model-predicted maximum updraft speed, but still greater than what was observed.Comparisons among the nested grid fine mesh model (MB), nested grid coarse mesh model (MA), fine mesh model (FM), coarse mesh model (CM), and 2D model results previously published show that the nested grid fine mesh model (MB) gives the best simulation result. The various 3D model simulation results are generally similar to each other except for the difference in the domain maximum values. The domain maximum values in the fine mesh models (MB and FM) are generally higher than the coarse mesh models as a result of averaging over a smaller area.With 7 Figures