Cold-frontal rainbands over the United Kingdom: Sensitivity of precipitation processes to microphysics schemes in WRF simulations

Abstract A narrow cold-frontal rainband (NCFR) and wide cold-frontal rainband (WCFR) over the United Kingdom on 24 January 2018 are selected to evaluate the sensitivity of cold-season precipitation to three bulk cloud microphysics schemes in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model. The three simulations tend to overpredict the intensity and the areal coverage of NCFRs but underpredict those of WCFRs against the Met Office radar imagery. Nonetheless, the WRF double-moment 6-class (WDM6) simulation produces the most realistic NCFR and WCFR. More specifically, the intensity of the NCFR in the WDM6 simulation is overpredicted in the developing stage and underpredicted in the dissipating stage when compared to the Thompson and Morrison simulations. This phenomenon is mainly attributed to the rain mixing ratio at 1 km. The more intense and larger area of the WCFR in the WDM6 simulation is associated with more low-level snow, graupel, and rain than the other two simulations. In the WDM6 simulation, the larger low-level snow mixing ratios are due to the higher rates of aggregation between cloud ice and snow, whereas the larger rain mixing ratio is due to higher melting rates. Thus, differences in low-level ice-phase processes between microphysics schemes are large, strongly influencing the intensity of WCFRs, but the differences in warm-rain processes are smaller. Additionally, the small size of raindrops in the WDM6 simulation leads to wider and more intense WCFR as these raindrops are preferentially sent rearward relative to the cold front. Significance Statement Models are useful tools to predict weather but have errors in predicting different weather types. In the United Kingdom, precipitation is often predicted to be too strong at cold fronts and too weak behind the fronts compared to radar observations. Choosing different options for how precipitation is represented in one model produced different precipitation forecasts, with WDM6 being the best. One reason why WDM6 was the best was because it produced more and smaller raindrops, which would be transported behind the front, and it had higher melting rates at low levels, resulting in more precipitation behind the fronts than other options. Our results help identify why different options produce different forecasts, leading to possible future improvements in these options.