Upload
hector-day
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Jonathan Pleim1, Robert Gilliam1, and Aijun Xiu2
1Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division, NOAA, Research Triangle Park, NC (In partnership with the U.S. EPA)2Institute for the Environment, UNC-Chapel Hill
Evaluation of Pleim-Xiu Land Surface Model and Asymmetric Convective
Model in WRF
Outline• Addition of new physics to WRF
Asymmetric Convective Model – version 2 (ACM2)
Pleim-Xiu Land Surface Model (PX-LSM)
• Preliminary evaluation of WRF-PX-ACM2 and WRF-NOAH-YSU Surface observations and analyses PBL heights derived from radar wind
profilers
New Physics• ACM2
Combined non-local and local closure Similar to eddy diffusion w/ counter-gradient adjustment (e.g. MRF,
YSU) but better for chemistry Produces realistic profiles in convective boundary layers (CBL) and
accurate PBL heights (Pleim 2007 parts 1&2 JAMC) In CMAQ, MM5, and WRF
• PX LSM Three pathways for evaporation
• Ground evaporation - f(sfc soil moisture)• Wet canopies - f(cwc)• Evapotranspiration - f(stomatal resistance)
Detailed Vegetation and Soil Data• USGS and STATSGO (1 km) soon NLCD-30m• Grid cell aggregate parameters from fractional area LU and soil type data.
Indirect Soil Moisture Nudging• Model-obs surface temperature and humidity
WRF PBL/Surface Fluxes
• PBL/Surface model components are in three separate, but interdependent modules in WRF
1. Land surface model – computes soil moisture and temperature and moisture fluxes from ground, wet leaves, evapotranspiration. Added PX LSM
2. Surface layer – Solves flux-profile relationships. Outputs: L, u*, Ra. Added Pleim (2006) surface layer scheme
3. PBL – Computes subgrid turbulent vertical transport. Added ACM2
Evaluation of WRF-PX-ACM2 and WRF-NOAH-YSU
• Grid configuration: Horizontal grid resolution = 12 km 34 vertical layer
• Physics: RRTM long wave radiation Dudhia SW WSM6 microphysics KF2 convective cloud scheme
• FDDA 3-D analysis nudging for winds (all levels), T, qv
(above PBL only) Indirect soil moisture nudging using NCEP surface
analysis of T and RH for PX LSM
2006 WRF 12km T-2m Stats
Temperature Error
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
1-Aug
2-Aug
3-Aug
4-Aug
5-Aug
6-Aug
7-Aug
8-Aug
9-Aug
10-A
ug
11-A
ug
12-A
ug
13-A
ug
14-A
ug
15-A
ug
16-A
ug
17-A
ug
18-A
ug
19-A
ug
20-A
ug
21-A
ug
22-A
ug
23-A
ug
24-A
ug
25-A
ug
26-A
ug
27-A
ug
28-A
ug
29-A
ug
30-A
ug
Day
RM
SE
/MA
E (
K)
Analysis (RMSE)
Analysis (MAE)
WRF PX ACM
WRF PX ACM
WRF NOAH YSU
WRF NOAH YSU
Temperature BIAS
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1-Aug
2-Aug
3-Aug
4-Aug
5-Aug
6-Aug
7-Aug
8-Aug
9-Aug
10-A
ug
11-A
ug
12-A
ug
13-A
ug
14-A
ug
15-A
ug
16-A
ug
17-A
ug
18-A
ug
19-A
ug
20-A
ug
21-A
ug
22-A
ug
23-A
ug
24-A
ug
25-A
ug
26-A
ug
27-A
ug
28-A
ug
29-A
ug
30-A
ug
Day
BIA
S (
K)
Analysis (RMSE)
WRF PX ACM
WRF NOAH YSU
WRF PX 2-m Temperature Statistics
WRF NOAH 2-m Temperature Statistics
T-2m, WRF PX – Analysis, August 2006
T-2m, WRF NOAH – Analysis, August 2006
WRF Analysis 2-m Temperature Statistics
Mixing Ratio Error
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1-Aug
2-Aug
3-Aug
4-Aug
5-Aug
6-Aug
7-Aug
8-Aug
9-Aug
10-A
ug
11-A
ug
12-A
ug
13-A
ug
14-A
ug
15-A
ug
16-A
ug
17-A
ug
18-A
ug
19-A
ug
20-A
ug
21-A
ug
22-A
ug
23-A
ug
24-A
ug
25-A
ug
26-A
ug
27-A
ug
28-A
ug
29-A
ug
30-A
ug
Day
RM
SE
/MA
E (
g/k
g)
Analysis (RMSE)
Analysis (MAE)
WRF PX ACM
WRF PX ACM
WRF NOAH YSU
WRF NOAH YSU
Mixing Ratio BIAS
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
1-Aug
2-Aug
3-Aug
4-Aug
5-Aug
6-Aug
7-Aug
8-Aug
9-Aug
10-A
ug
11-A
ug
12-A
ug
13-A
ug
14-A
ug
15-A
ug
16-A
ug
17-A
ug
18-A
ug
19-A
ug
20-A
ug
21-A
ug
22-A
ug
23-A
ug
24-A
ug
25-A
ug
26-A
ug
27-A
ug
28-A
ug
29-A
ug
30-A
ug
Day
BIA
S (
g/k
g)
Analysis (RMSE)
WRF PX ACM
WRF NOAH YSU
WRF PX 2-m MixR Statistics
WRF NOAH 2-m MixR Statistics
Wind Speed Error
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
1-Aug
2-Aug
3-Aug
4-Aug
5-Aug
6-Aug
7-Aug
8-Aug
9-Aug
10-A
ug
11-A
ug
12-A
ug
13-A
ug
14-A
ug
15-A
ug
16-A
ug
17-A
ug
18-A
ug
19-A
ug
20-A
ug
21-A
ug
22-A
ug
23-A
ug
24-A
ug
25-A
ug
26-A
ug
27-A
ug
28-A
ug
29-A
ug
30-A
ug
Day
RM
SE
/MA
E (
m/s
)
WRF PX ACM
WRF PX ACM
WRF NOAH YSU
WRF NOAH YSU
Wind Speed BIAS
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1-Aug
2-Aug
3-Aug
4-Aug
5-Aug
6-Aug
7-Aug
8-Aug
9-Aug
10-A
ug
11-A
ug
12-A
ug
13-A
ug
14-A
ug
15-A
ug
16-A
ug
17-A
ug
18-A
ug
19-A
ug
20-A
ug
21-A
ug
22-A
ug
23-A
ug
24-A
ug
25-A
ug
26-A
ug
27-A
ug
28-A
ug
29-A
ug
30-A
ug
Day
BIA
S (
m/s
)
WRF PX ACM
WRF NOAH YSU
PBL Heights from TexAQS II
• PBL heights derived from 10 radar wind profilers in Texas area by Jim Wilczak and Laura Bianco NOAA/ESRL
• Observations and models averaged by hour of the day for August 1-31, 2006
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
mdySTATS
OBSNOAHYSUPXACM2
Hour (LT)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
10 12 14 16 18 20
aclSTATS
OBSNOAHYSUPXACM2
Hour (LT)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
bhmSTATS
OBSNOAHYSUPXACM2
Hour (LT)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
lvwSTATS
OBS
NOAHYSU
PXACM2
Hour (LT)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
lptSTATS
OBSNOAHYSUPXACM2
Hour (LT)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
cleSTATS
OBS
NOAHYSU
PXACM2
Hour (LT)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
bpaSTATS
OBS
NOAHYSU
PXACM2
Hour (LT)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
hveSTATS
OBS
NOAHYSU
PXACM2
Hour (LT)
Summary• WRF-PX-ACM2 and WRF-NOAH-YSU show
similar performance for surface statistics Less humidity bias for PX Low wind speed bias less for PX T-2m error and bias better for PX in eastern portion
of domain but worse in western plains
• Preliminary PBL height analysis shows that PX-ACM2 has generally less high bias than NOAH-YSU
Next
• Finish the study outlined in the abstract Run WRF-PX-MYJ Run CMAQ-ACM2 using met from
WRF-PX-ACM2 Run CMAQ-MYJ using met from
WRF-PX-MYJ Evaluate both met/aq combinations
against TexAQSII Field experiment
Further WRF Development
• Implement snow model in PX LSM
• Implement new, high resolution, more accurate 2002 National Land Cover Data Based on 30 m Landsat-7 ETM
• WRF-CMAQ 2-way “On-line” system under development Beta release September 2008
Acknowledgements
Tanya Otte (ASMD), Lara Reynolds (CSC)
Disclaimer - The research presented here was performed under the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and under agreement number DW 13921548. This work constitutes a contribution to the NOAA Air Quality Program. Although it has been reviewed by EPA and NOAA and approved for publication, it does not necessarily reflect their policies or views.