《Table 4.Average accumulated precipitation(units:mm)of the WDM6 scheme simulation,the Thompson schem

  提示：宽带有限、当前游客访问压缩模式

本系列图表出处文件名：随高清版一同展现

《两种双参数微物理方案暖云粒子谱及雨滴源汇模拟对比研究（英文）》

1. 获取 高清版本忘记账户？点击这里登录

1. 下载图表忘记账户？点击这里登录

The simulated 0000–1800 UTC accumulated precipitation is presented in Figure 1（a，b）.Generally，simulation using either scheme agrees with the observations（Figure 1(d）)in location.Both simulations have a rainfall center of over 300 mm in central Beijing and the simulated accumulated precipitation of both schemes is larger than the observations.The probability distribution of hourly precipitation of the Thompson scheme is closer to the observation than that of the WDM6 scheme.The WDM6 scheme underestimates the ratio of precipitation smaller than 5 mm h-1and overestimates the ratio of larger precipitation at the same time（Figure 1(f）).As shown in Table 4，the average precipitation is larger when the WDM6 scheme produces more precipitation.Meanwhile，the WDM6 scheme overestimates larger precipitation and underestimates smaller precipitation compared to the observation.Two typical domains（marked as domain A and B in Figure 1(c）)around Beijing are chosen to explore the differences and the corresponding microphysical causes in hydrometeor characteristics between the two schemes.The simulated radar reflectivity of both schemes compares well with the observation in domain A.However，the WDM6 scheme shows a delay of precipitation in domain B，as presented in Figure 2.In domain A，the WDM6 scheme generally produces more precipitation than the Thompson scheme，while the opposite happens in domain B.Domain A is mainly dominated by updrafts，with a maximum average vertical velocity exceeding 0.5 m s-1.Downdrafts are dominant at a lower level in domain B in both schemes，as shown in Figure 3.