Meteorol Atmos Phys (2009) 105:167–179
DOI 10.1007/s00703-009-0045-4
ORIGINAL PAPER
Role of cumulus parameterization schemes in simulating heavy
rainfall episodes off the coast of Maharashtra state during
28 June–4 July 2007
Odury S. R. U. Bhanu Kumar Æ Sai Ramalingeswara Rao Æ
Kailasam Muni Krishna
Received: 29 July 2008 / Accepted: 3 September 2009 / Published online: 18 September 2009
Ó Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract Indian summer monsoon gives on an average
250 cm of rainfall due to mesoscale/synoptic scale systems
over west coast of India; now-a-days, MM5 model plays a
very crucial role in simulating such heavy rainfall episodes
like Mumbai (India) on 26 July 2005, which caused
devastation through flash floods. The main aim of this
study is to simulate such heavy rainfall episodes using
three different cumulus parameterization schemes (CPS)
namely Kain–Fritsch-1, Anthes–Kuo and Grell and to
compare their relative merits in identifying the character-
istics of mesoscale systems over 14 stations in coastal
Maharashtra state during 28 June–4 July 2007. MM5
control experiment results are analysed for the fields of
mean sea level pressure, wind, geopotential height at
850 hPa and rainfall with the above schemes. It is inter-
esting to note that Kain–Fritsch-1 scheme simulates heavy
rainfall amount of 48 cm for an observed rainfall of 51 cm
in 24 h. The Grell scheme underestimates heavy rainfall
episodes, while the Anthes–Kuo scheme is found to over
predict rainfall on both temporal and spatial scales. The
reason for better performance of KF-1 scheme may be due
to inclusion of updrafts and downdrafts. Later the simu-
lated rainfall quantities at 14 stations over study region are
validated with both 3B42RT and observed rain gauge data
of India Meteorological Department (IMD) and the results
are promising. Finally, for the heavy rainfall prediction
cases, the best threat score is at 0.25 mm threshold for
three CPSs. Thus, this study is a breakthrough in pointing
O. S. R. U. Bhanu Kumar (&)
S. Ramalingeswara Rao

K. Muni Krishna
Department of Meteorology and Oceanography,
Andhra University, Visakhapatnam 530 003, India
e-mail: osrubhanukumar@yahoo.com
out that the KF-1 experiment has the best skill in predicting
heavy rainfall episodes.
1 Introduction
Heavy rainfall events (C15 cm) are very frequent and
wide spread during June through September over west
coast of India, in general, and Maharashtra state, in
particular, due to onset vortex, active phase of intra
seasonal oscillations (ISO), mesoscale systems and
mid-tropospheric cyclonic circulations. An active phase of
ISO caused heavy rainfall episodes during the last week
of June and first week of July 2007. To identify such
episodes, we need high-resolution observations and
numerical modelling technique for better predicting heavy
rainfall events and understand the evolution and devel-
opment mechanisms of mesoscale convection responsible
for heavy rainfall incidents (Routray et al. 2005; Mohanty
2006). In recent decade, there have been many numerical
studies related to convective weather and improvement of
rainfall forecasts that have provided a better understand-
ing of physical and dynamical processes (Bhanu Kumar
et al. 2008; Mohanty 2006; Ratnam and Krishna Kumar
2005; Kerkhoven et al. 2006; Wang and Seaman 1997)
over India and aboard. Previous studies on meso-b scale
systems, research has concentrated on the development of
conceptual cloud models for modelling the entrainment–
detrainment rate at cloud lateral boundaries and properties
of updrafts and downdrafts (Kuo 1965, 1974; Arakawa
and Schubert 1974; Anthes 1977; Anthes and Warner
1978; Fritsch and Chappell 1980; Frank and Cohen 1985;
Betts and Miller 1986; Kain and Fritsch 1990, 1993; Grell
and Kuo 1991; Grell 1993; Arakawa 1993; Mapes 2000;
Xu and Randall 2001).
123
168
The difference between the resolution of mesoscale
models (20–50 km) and the scale of a cumulus cell
(1–10 km), mesoscale models require the use of cumulus
parameterization schemes (CPS). These schemes must
define the trigger of convection, how convection modifies
moisture and temperature in a column, and how convection
interacts with grid-scale dynamics using the grid-scale
information of the main model. The purpose of this study is
to evaluate the influence of the choice of CPSs (Table 1) in
MM5 model to predict heavy rainfall events, with an
emphasis on the accuracy of predicted rainfall amounts in
terms of spatial and temporal distributions.
2 Synoptic situation
An active phase of ISO plays an important role in causing
heavy rainfall episodes through a mesoscale system over
the west coast of India in the present study. On 28 June, a
feeble north–south trough formed off Maharashtra coast
and Chiplun station received 13 cm of rainfall. Next day
(Figs. 1, 2) it has extended from North Maharashtra coast
to Kerala coast on surface chart and the associated upper
air cyclonic circulation extended over it up to 4.5 km
above sea level, which resulted in 51 cm of rainfall in
Mahad, while the neighbouring 11 stations also observed
heavy rainfall amounts in the range 20–36 cm. On 30 June
morning, trough was further extended from North
Maharashtra coast to Lakshadweep area and corresponding
associated upper air cyclonic circulation also extended up
to 7.6 km above sea level and on this day, ten stations
over the study region recorded 20–42 cm of rainfall. The
upper air cyclonic circulation over Saurashtra and
adjoining areas emerged with the above system on 30 June
evening.
Above north–south, trough has confined south Gujarat to
Kerala coast on 1 July with a decreased vertical extent and
intensity and six stations received greater than 20 cm of
rainfall. Later it further weakened into a low pressure area
on 2 July evening and centred over West Rajasthan and
adjoining areas and it persisted on 3 July morning tilting
southwards with height.
Table 1 Summary of cumulus parameterization schemes used in this study
CP schemes Reference Cloud model
Anthes–Kuo Anthes (1977) Simple 1-D, no downdraft
Grell Grell (1993) 1-D updraft-downdraft couplet,
no lateral entrainment
Kain–Fritsch-1 Kain and Fritsch (1990) 1-D entraining–detraining plume,
with downdraft
123
O. S. R. U Bhanu Kumar et al.
Heavy rainfall episodes were recorded at three stations
only out of 14 stations (Table 2). On 3 July evening it
persisted over the same area; however, the associated upper
air cyclonic circulation was up to 4.5 km above sea level. It
moved away on 4 July. The synoptic sequence of above
mesoscale system during 28 June to 2 July 2007 is shown
in terms of Satellite IR imageries over the study region
(Fig. 3). It is interesting to note that on 29 June convective
cloud amount of was very high and the OLR value was
130 W/m2 over the study region, where the heavy rainfall
episode occurred.
3 Data and model description
In this study, National Center for Environmental Prediction
(NCEP) Final Analysis (FNL) model initialization fields
(1°91°) at 6 h intervals, daily NCEP-GDAS (1°91°) and
Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM)-3B42RT-
merged rainfall data sets are downloaded, while daily rain
gauge data set is obtained from the IMD for the period 28
June–4 July 2007. The state-of-the-art to simulate the heavy
rainfall events in the present study is version 3 of the fifth
generation of the Pennsylvania State University–National
Center for Atmospheric Research MM5 model (Grell et al.
1994; Dudhia et al. 2004) with three different CPSs, while
the following components of the scheme are common. The
horizontal resolution of 45, 15 and 5 km is initially used on
a triple nested grid (Fig. 4). In the vertical, 23 r levels were
used with increased resolution in the lowest kilometer in
order to adequately resolve the boundary layer. Topography
is taken from the USGS 5-min resolution data set and
interpolated onto the model grid using an overlapping
parabolic interpolation method. Initial and boundary
conditions (atmospheric variables, soil moisture and
temperature) were interpolated from the NCEP FNL data at
21 standard pressure levels under 100 hPa onto the MM5
grid. Boundary layer processes were parameterized using
the MRF scheme (Hong and Pan 1996), while surface, land
temperature and moisture were calculated using the five-
layer soil model (Dudhia 1996), which considers soil
properties up to 2 m below the surface. Cloud radiation
Closure assumption
Precipitation is proportional to large-scale moisture
convergence
The rate of production of instability at the large
scale equals the rate of removal of instability at the
small scale
Convection is proportional to the available buoyant
energy
Role of cumulus parameterization schemes 169

Fig. 1 Streamlines at 850 hPa from NCEP-GDAS valid at 0000 UTC during 28 June 2007–4 Jul 2007

123
170 O. S. R. U Bhanu Kumar et al.

Fig. 2 Streamlines at 200 hPa from NCEP-GDAS valid at 0000 UTC during 28 June 2007–4 Jul 2007

123
Role of cumulus parameterization schemes 171

Table 2 IMD rain gauge and model rainfall data

S. no. Station IMD rain gauge (Model-KF) (cm)
28-06-07 29-06-07 30-06-07 01-07-07 02-07-07 03-07-07 04-07-07

1 Chiplun 13 (11, 8, 29) 22 (19, 16, 49) 39 (35, 28, 52) 19 (17, 11, 34) – – –
2 Mahad – 51 (48, 38, 79) 42 (40, 26, 62) – – – –
3 Mhasala – 36 (31, 14, 69) 30 (28, 11, 53) – – – –
4 Poladpur – 34 (30, 12, 73) 35 (31, 13, 58) – – – –
5 Mahabaleshwar – 31 (27, 10, 59) 32 (29, 11, 62) – 33 (31, 11, 65) 20 (17, 5, 44) 20 (17, 5, 44)
6 Murud – 25 (22, 8, 50) 33 (30, 11, 64) – – – –
7 Mangaon – 24 (22, 10, 45) 27 (25, 10, 55) – – – –
8 Bhira – 23 (20, 9, 42) 21 (17, 7, 46) 24 (21, 7, 51) 21 (18, 7, 55) 29 (25, 11, 61) –
9 Rajapur – 22 (18, 8, 50) 30 (28, 9, 62) – – – –
10 Dapoli – 21 (19, 7, 41) 27 (23, 8, 58) – 18 (15, 6, 44) – –
11 Alibag – 20 (17, 11, 44) – – – – –
12 Hamai – 17 (14, 8, 43) – 17 (15, 8, 44) – – –
13 Santacruz – – 17 (14, 5, 33) 26 (22, 9, 59) – – –
14 Ratnagiri – – 17 (14, 6, 39) – – –
15 Thane – – – 33 (30, 10, 61) – – –
16 Taloda – – – 22 (20, 8, 50) – – –
17 Akkalkuwa – – – 24 (21, 9, 53) 25 (22, 8, 49) – –
18 Navapur – – – – 17 (15, 5, 39) 18 (16, 7, 42) –
The values in bold, italic and bold italic fonts are KF-1, GR and AK, respectively

Fig. 3 Dundee satellite IR

images during 29 June–2 July
2007 at 0600 GMT

123
172 O. S. R. U Bhanu Kumar et al.

Fig. 4 Computational domains

for the 45-, 15- and 5-km grid
sizes used in the study (numbers
in the second figure represent
IMD rain stations)

Fig. 5 Simulated sea level pressure for a NCEP-GDAS, b Kain–Fritsch, c Grell and d Anthes–Kuo schemes valid for at 0000 IST 29 June 2007

interaction is allowed between explicit cloud and clear air. which uses predictive equations for cloud water, rainwater,
Moist convection was parameterized using AK, Grell (1993) snow and ice, has been performed using the simple ice
and KF-1. The explicit microphysics parameterization, scheme of Dudhia (1996).

123
Role of cumulus parameterization schemes
Fig. 6 Streamlines at 850 hPa for a NCEP-GDAS, b Kain–Fritsch, c Grell and d Anthes–Kuo Schemes valid at 0000 IST on 29 June 2007
CP schemes have significant impacts on model predictions,
just as cumulus convection affects the atmospheric
circulation by redistributing heat, moisture and momentum.
Adjustments to the atmosphere made by different CP
scheme can vary significantly. For the above reasons, we
choose three schemes namely AK, Grell and KF. AK
scheme is a modification by Anthes (1977) of the Kuo
(1965). Convection is determined from the vertically
integrated moisture convergence. Grell scheme is a simple
single cloud version of the Arakawa–Schubert scheme
designed to avoid first-order sources of error (Grell 1993;
Grell et al. 1994). The KF scheme (Kain and Fritsch 1990)
is an extension of the Fritsch and Chappell scheme. It uses
the same assumptions about the removal of CAPE,
convective time scale, triggering of convective and
precipitation efficiency.
The model prognostic rainfall distribution is first
validated against satellite imagery and objective analyses,
to make sure that the model has adequate skill to reproduce
the mesoscale-scale features with embedded mesoscale
173
precipitating systems. Then, the categorical statistics scores
(Hamill 1999; McBride and Ebert 2000) such as threat score
(TS), equitable threat score (ETS), and bias score (BS) are
evaluated for several threshold values (0.25, 2.5, 10, 15, 20
and 25 mm), based on the 6-h rainfall forecast by each CPS
experiment on the 5-km grid points. Note that total (both
parameterized and resolved) rainfall is evaluated. Because
there are only a few 45- and 15-km grid points in Maha-
rashtra, categorical statistics scores with such a limited
sampling of points probably do not have much statistical
meaning; thus the 45- and 15-km verification results over
the Maharashtra area are not discussed. Definitions and
descriptions of the categorical statistical scores, and rain-
fall-amount parameters are given in ‘‘Appendix’’.
4 Results
MM5 control experiments with three different CPS were
performed for mean sea level pressure (MSLP), wind,
123
174
Fig. 7 Geopotential height (m) at 850 hPa for a NCEP-GDAS, b Kain–Fritsch, c Grell and d Anthes–Kuo schemes valid at 0000 IST on 29 June
2007
geopotential height and rainfall over off the coast of
Maharashtra during 28 June–4 July 2007 and the results are
analysed and discussed as follows.
4.1 Mean sea level pressure
Figure 5 represents NCEP-GDAS and simulated MSLP
valid at 0000 IST of 29 June 2007. Figure 5a shows the
subjectively analysed MSLP by NCEP-GDAS, while
Fig. 5b–d depicts the model-simulated MSLP with KF-1,
Grell and Anthes–Kuo simulations, respectively. Comparing
the simulations from all the numerical experiments with the
NCEP-GDAS, it is noted that the general characteristics in
MSLP pattern over the study region is fairly captured in the
KF-1 simulations. It is noticed that over the Arabian Sea,
isobars are nearly parallel to each other and oriented along
the monsoonal flow during this period. The isobars in all
123
O. S. R. U Bhanu Kumar et al.
simulations show the trough formation along the west coast
of India that extended from north Maharashtra coast to
Kerala coast. This feature is also clearly supported by the
NCEP-GDAS trough shown in Fig. 5a. The manifestation
of trough is most prominent in KF-1 (Fig. 5b). Although all
the figures show similar pressure pattern, there are a defi-
nite differences in the pressure gradients along the west
coast from Kerala coast to north Maharashtra coast. Grell
and AK simulations establish a pressure change of 4 hPa
from southern part coastal Karnataka to north Maharashtra
coast where as the northward decrease of pressure over same
region is about 6 hPa in KF-1 simulations. Correspondingly,
KF-1 simulations generate strong pressure gradients
along the west coast of India compared to Grell and AK
simulations. Henceforth, the location of isobars and their
corresponding orientations in KF-1 fairly match with
NCEP-GDAS observations.
Role of cumulus parameterization schemes
Fig. 8 Convective instability (the difference in equivalent potential temperature (he) between 1,000 and 500 hPa in °K) for a Kain–Fritsch, b
Grell and c Anthes–Kuo schemes valid at 0000 IST on 29 June 2007
4.2 Upper air circulation
Having studied surface distribution of pressure over the
study region, it is interesting to study vertical structure of
the mesoscale system using upper air data. Figure 6
describes streamlines at 850 hPa valid at 0000 IST of 29
June 2007. Figure 6a represents the streamlines from
NCEP-GDAS, where as KF-1, Grell and AK simulates are
depicted in Fig. 6b–d, respectively. Figure 7 is same as
Fig. 6, but for geopotential height. A comprehensive
analysis of upper air circulation changes is presented in
Fig. 6, which depicts a zonal flow pattern over the Arabian
Sea, which after crossing the west coast line acquires a
meridional component towards the south.
The streamlines mostly follow geopotential height over
the sea region in KF-1 simulations. Close observation of
near surface MSLP pattern and geopotential height at
850 hPa indicate the presence of trough. However, the
175
turning of streamlines at 850 hPa is not very clear. The rate
of decrease in the geopotential height on 29 June 2007
using KF-1 experiment resembles very well with NCEP-
GDAS. The simulated geopotential heights due to Grell
and AK schemes are higher when compared to the NCEP
reanalysis.
4.3 Rainfall episodes
Results from MM5 model simulations with KF-1 scheme
highlight that localized distribution of rainfall of 48 cm at
Mahad station in west coast for the observed IMD rainfall
of 51 cm on 29 June 2007 in 5-km resolution which is
relatively better simulated than 45- and 15-km resolutions
to obtain the heavy rainfall episodes. Similarly, 13 other
stations also simulated heavy rainfall which is very close to
rain gauge data on the same day. Hence the specifications
of the experiments are satisfactory and repeated for the
123
176 O. S. R. U Bhanu Kumar et al.

Fig. 9 Comparison between

24 h accumulated rainfall (cm)
of model simulation (KF-1) and
3B42RT

123
Role of cumulus parameterization schemes 177

other days and the results are presented in Table 2. This
study is similar to Routray et al. (2005), who assimilated
heavy rainfall events with the coarse resolution along the
west coast of India. An area of convectively unstable
stratification [the difference in equivalent potential
temperature (he) between 1,000 and 500 hPa] existed over
the heavy rainfall area near to west coast of India. This
instability arose from warm moist air extending down the
west coast towards Maharashtra with a tongue of high he
air present between 17°N and 19°N (Fig. 8). Thus, an
extreme rainfall event was the result of warm moist air
being advected onto coast of Maharashtra.
Simulated rainfall using MM5 model with different
CPSs is discussed as follows: Simulated rainfall is further
compared with observational 24 h rainfall valid during
heavy rainfall episodes separately. Although the relative
paucity of rainfall stations prevents a detailed comparison,
Fig. 9 gives an indication of the model performance for
rainfall. The rainfall recorded over off coast of Maharashtra
is 12–51 cm whereas the model simulated showed a
maximum of 10–48 cm. However, it is found that the
timing of the most intense rainfall in the model compared
well with that observed and the results of simulated rainfall
are presented in Table 2. Present simulated study clearly
demonstrates that the rainfall maximum episodes amount
up to 85% of observational value over the study region.
Significance of model output performance of rainfall is also
discussed in terms of statistical skill scores.
4.4 Categorical statistics scores
experiments, the timing and downdrafts might cause such
bad rainfall forecasts than KF-1 experiment. Because
summer monsoon rainfall was mainly generated by tropical
disturbances, active phases of ISOs and onset vortex, which
the 5-km MM5 could not adequately represent with such a
coarse horizontal resolution, the model had poor TS
performance.
Table 3 reveals ETS and BS averaged over six 6-h
periods at different thresholds for heavy rainfall episodes.
Table 3a indicates that for heavy rainfall, the ETSs of all
experiments were similar (around 0.2 at 0.25 mm threshold).
For rainfall thresholds of 15 mm and above, all
experiments with near zero or negative ETSs showed little
predictive skill, consistent with the findings of Stensrud
et al. (2000) and Gallus and Segal (2001) that models with
grid sizes of 5–20 km have little skill for 6-h rainfall
amounts of 12.5 mm or above. Table 3b further indicates
that MM5 model with AK overpredicted the rainfall
(with BSs more than one at 0.25 mm threshold), and
underpredicted with Grell scheme (with BSs less than one
for thresholds of 5 mm and more). For the BSs by three
CPSs for the heavy rainfall cases in Maharashtra, GR has a
clear under forecasting. It may be due to the various con-
vection nature, and different geographical location. For
total rainfall amount prediction, KF has the best skill
among three CPSs.
Finally, the model rainfall results with different CPS
are validated (Table 3) with both the IMD rain gauge
observations and TRMM-merged rainfall product 3B42RT

Figure 10 shows TSs at the 0.25 mm threshold for 6-h Table 3 (a) Equitable threat scores and (b) bias scores averaged over
six 6-h periods for different precipitation thresholds of heavy rainfall
rainfall predictions. The 5-km MM5 using three CPSs
event
generally show good predictive skill for coverage of
measurable 6-h rainfall off coast of Maharashtra region, Threshold (mm) AK scheme GR scheme KF-1 scheme
with TSs greater than 0.4 at the rainfall threshold 0.25 mm. (a)
The model performed relatively poor for the AK and Grell 0.25 0.2041 0.2321 0.1978
2.5 0.1824 0.1975 0.1892*
5 0.1021 0.0924 0.1359*
10 0.0957 0.0125 0.0315*
15 0.0153 0.0071 0.0209*
20 0.0024 -0.0022 0.0156*
25 -0.0052 -0.0042 0.0021
(b)
0.25 1.2122 1.1622 1.1349*
2.5 0.7124 0.9965 1.0178*
5 0.5761 0.4954 0.6874
10 0.4622 0.3125 0.7216*
15 0.1825 0.1171 0.3697*
20 0.2522 0.2264 0.4511*
Fig. 10 Threat scores (TSs) at the 0.25-mm threshold for 6-h rainfall 25 0.2827 0.2679 0.5721*
predictions from 5-km MM5 runs. The times on the abscissa are
relative to the model’s initial time * The score indicates best forecast at a given precipitation threshold

123
178
(Fig. 7) for the same episodes off coast of Maharashtra. It
is noticed that the 3B42RT data set was underestimated as
compared to the observed rainfall. Similar type of work
was done by Yang and Tung (2003) over Taiwan region.
5 Discussions and conclusions
Our study is based on a single localized event so that the
findings are somewhat approximate in nature, and further
work is needed to fulfil our conclusions. The AK and Grell
schemes are unable to produce sufficient rainfall than KF
because of the inclusion of entrainment/detrainment
processes. Statistical verification scores used in this study
do not always provide a fully ‘‘objective’’ assessment of a
rainfall forecast.
Development of better evaluation methods for high-
resolution nonhydrostatic models is greatly needed in the
future. The information obtained from these experiments
should be useful for improvement of CPS intended for
operational usage at a grid size of 5 km in a tropical
environment with substantial topography, or the Indian
region in particular.
In conclusion, quantitative rainfall forecasting in an
operational model setting remains a very difficult task.
There is no single cumulus scheme that consistently
outperforms the others in all evaluation parameters of the
rainfall forecast and across all weather systems. Finally,
much work remains to be done to adequately understand
how a CPS interacts with other components in a numerical
weather prediction model.
Acknowledgments The authors are thankful to D.R. Sikka, India,
T.N. Krishnamurty, Florida State University, USA and D.B. Rao
NOAA, USA for their academic encouragement and financial support
through research project (11/MRDF/1/41/P/08) from the Department
of Science and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi. The
authors are also thankful to Mesoscale group of UCAR and NCEP-
NCAR for providing the MM5 model and FNL. Two anonymous
reviewers provided helpful comments, which significantly improved
the manuscript.
Appendix
Some evaluation parameters used in this study are derived
using a contingency table (Wilks 1995; Colle et al. 1999;
Hamill 1999). This table represents a 2 9 2 matrix
(Table 4), where each element of the matrix holds the
number of occurrences, in which the observations and the
model did, or did not reach a certain threshold amount of
rainfall for a given period of forecast (6 h in this study).
For example, if both the observation and the model verified
at that point reach or exceed the threshold criteria, the
123
O. S. R. U Bhanu Kumar et al.
Table 4 Rain contingency table used for verification
Forecasted Observed
Rain No rain
Rain A B
No rain C D
Each element of the matrix (A, B, C and D) holds the number of
occurrence in which the observations and/or the model forecasts reach
a rainfall threshold amount for a given forecast period
number of occurrences in the ‘‘A’’ element in Table 4 is
increased by one. Letters A, B, C and D are used as in
Wilks (1995) and Colle et al. (1999).
Based on this contingency table, one can calculate
several evaluation parameters. The BS is defined as
F AþB
BS ¼ ¼
O AþC
where F is the number of grid points where rainfall was
forecasted to exceed a given threshold, and O is the number
of observed grid points where rainfall exceeded the
threshold. The ETS measures the skill in predicting a
given threshold at a location and is defined as
HE AE
ETS ¼ ¼
FþOHE AþBþCE
where H is the number of grid points where rainfall was
correctly forecasted to exceed a given threshold (a ‘‘hit’’),
F and O are defined above, and the random-guess number
E is defined as
FO ðA þ BÞðA þ C Þ
E¼ ¼
N N
where N is the total number of grid points verified
(A ? B ? C ? D). The ETS is similar to the TS, except
that the ETS corrects for the expected number of hit by
chance (E).
H A
TS ¼ ¼ :
FþOH AþBþC
References
Anthes RA (1977) A cumulus parameterization scheme utilizing a
one-dimensional cloud model. Mon Weather Rev 105:270–286
Anthes RA, Warner TT (1978) Development of hydrodynamic
models suitable for air pollution and other meso meteorological
studies. Mon Weather Rev 106:1045–1078
Arakawa A (1993) Closure assumptions in the cumulus parameter-
ization problem. In: Emanuel KA, Raymond DJ (eds) The
representation of cumulus convection in numerical models.
American Meteorological Society, Boston, pp 1–15
Arakawa A, Schubert WH (1974) Interaction of a cumulus cloud
ensemble with the large-scale environment. Part 1. J Atmos Sci
31:674–701
Role of cumulus parameterization schemes
Betts AK, Miller MJ (1986) A new convective adjustment scheme.
Part II: single column tests using GATE wave, BOMEX, ATEX
and arctic air-mass data sets. Q J Roy Meteorol Soc 112:693–709
Bhanu Kumar OSRU, Muni Krishna K, Ramalingeswara Rao S
(2008) Simulation of environmental heavy rainfall episodes
during June and July 2006—a case study. Canad J Pure Appl Sci
2(1):211–220
Colle BA, Westrick KJ, Mass CF (1999) Evaluation of MM5 and
Eta-10 precipitation forecasts over the Pacific northwest during
the cool season. Weather Forecast 14:137–154
Dudhia J (1996) A multi-layer soil temperature model for MM5.
Preprints, the sixth PSU/NCAR Mesoscale Model User’s Work-
shop. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder
Dudhia J, Gill D, Manning K, Wang W, Bruyere C (2004) PSU/
NCAR mesoscale modelling system tutorial class notes and
users’ guide (MM5 modelling system version 3). National
Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder. http://www.mmm.
ucar.edu/mm5/documents, 27 September 2004
Frank WM, Cohen C (1985) Properties of tropical cloud ensembles
estimated using a cloud model and an observed updraft
population. J Atmos Sci 42:1911–1928
Fritsch JM, Chappell CF (1980) Numerical prediction of convectively
driven mesoscale pressure system. Part 1. J Atmos Sci 37:1722–
1733
Gallus WA, Segal M (2001) Impact of improved initialization of
mesoscale features on convective system rainfall in 10-km Eta
simulations. Weather Forecast 16:69–680
Grell GA (1993) Prognostic evaluation of assumptions used by
cumulus parameterizations. Mon Weather Rev 121:765–787
Grell GA, Kuo YH (1991) Semi prognostic tests of cumulus
parameterization schemes in the middle latitudes. Mon Weather
Rev 119:5–31
Grell GA, Dudhia J, Stauffer DR (1994) A description of the fifth-
generation Penn State/NCAR mesoscale model (MM5). NCAR
Technical Note 398. National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder
Hamill TM (1999) Hypothesis tests for evaluating numerical precip-
itation forecasts. Weather Forecast 14:155–167
Hong SY, Hl Pan (1996) Nonlocal boundary layer vertical diffusion
in a medium-range forcast model. Mon Weather Rev 124:2322–
2339
Kain JS, Fritsch JM (1990) A one dimensional entraining/detraining
plume model and its application in cumulus parameterization.
J Atmos Sci 47:2784–2802
Kain JS, Fritsch JM (1993) Convective parameterization for meso-
scale models: the Kain–Fritsch scheme. In: Emanuel KA,
179
Raymond DJ (eds) The representation of cumulus convection
in numerical models. American Meteorological Society, Boston,
pp 165–170
Kerkhoven E, Gan TY, Shiiba M, Reuter G, Tanaka K (2006) A
comparison of cumulus parameterization schemes in a numerical
weather prediction model for a monsoon rainfall event. Hydrol
Process 20:1961–1978
Kuo HL (1965) On formation and intensification of tropical cyclone
through latent heat release by cumulus convection. J Atmos Sci
22:456–475
Kuo HL (1974) Further studies of the parameterization of the
influence of cumulus convection on large scale flow. J Atmos Sci
31:1232–1240
Mapes BE (2000) Convective inhibition, subgrid-scale triggering
energy, and stratiform instability in a toy tropical wave model.
J Atmos Sci 57:1515–1535
McBride J, Ebert EE (2000) Verification quantitative forecasts from
operational numerical weather prediction models over Australia.
Weather Forecast 15:103–121
Mohanty UC (2006) Challenges in simulation and forecasting
extreme weather events. National workshop on dynamics and
simulation of extreme rainfall C-MMACS, Bangalore, 16–17
March 2006
Ratnam JV, Krishna Kumar K (2005) Sensitivity of the simulated
monsoons of 1987 and 1988 to convective parameterization
schemes in MM5. J Climate 18:2724–2743
Routray A, Mohanty UC, Das AK, Sam NV (2005) Study of heavy
rainfall event over west coast of India using analysis nudging in
MM5 during ARMEX-I. Mausam 56:107–120
Stensrud DJ, Bao JW, Warner TT (2000) Using initial condition and
model physics perturbations in short-range ensembles. Mon
Weather Rev 128:2077–2107
Wang W, Seaman NL (1997) A comparison study of convective
parameterization schemes in a mesoscale model. Mon Weather
Rev 125:252–278
Wilks DS (1995) Statistical methods in the atmospheric sciences.
Academic Press, Dublin, p 467
Xu KM, Randall DA (2001) Updraft and downdraft statistics of
simulated tropical and midlatitude cumulus convection. J Atmos
Sci 58:1630–1649
Yang MJ, Tung QC (2003) Evaluation of rainfall forecasts over
Taiwan by four cumulus parameterization schemes. J Meteorol
Soc Jpn 81(5):1163–1183
123