 |
| Titel |
MM5 v3.6.1 and WRF v3.5.1 model comparison of standard and surface energy variables in the development of the planetary boundary layer |
| VerfasserIn |
C.-S. M. Wilmot, B. Rappenglück, X. Li, G. Cuchiara |
| Medientyp |
Artikel
|
| Sprache |
Englisch
|
| ISSN |
1991-959X
|
| Digitales Dokument |
URL |
| Erschienen |
In: Geoscientific Model Development ; 7, no. 6 ; Nr. 7, no. 6 (2014-11-18), S.2693-2707 |
| Datensatznummer |
250115779
|
| Publikation (Nr.) |
 copernicus.org/gmd-7-2693-2014.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
| Zusammenfassung |
Air quality forecasting requires atmospheric weather models to generate
accurate meteorological conditions, one of which is the development of the
planetary boundary layer (PBL). An important contributor to the development
of the PBL is the land–air exchange captured in the energy budget as well as
turbulence parameters. Standard and surface energy variables were modeled
using the fifth-generation Penn State/National Center for Atmospheric
Research mesoscale model (MM5), version 3.6.1, and the Weather Research and
Forecasting (WRF) model, version 3.5.1, and compared to measurements for a
southeastern Texas coastal region. The study period was 28 August–1 September 2006. It also included a frontal passage.
The results of the study are ambiguous. Although WRF does not perform as
well as MM5 in predicting PBL heights, it better simulates energy budget and
most of the general variables. Both models overestimate incoming solar
radiation, which implies a surplus of energy that could be redistributed in
either the partitioning of the surface energy variables or in some other
aspect of the meteorological modeling not examined here. The MM5 model
consistently had much drier conditions than the WRF model, which could lead
to more energy available to other parts of the meteorological system. On the
clearest day of the study period, MM5 had increased latent heat flux, which
could lead to higher evaporation rates and lower moisture in the model.
However, this latent heat disparity between the two models is not visible
during any other part of the study. The observed frontal passage affected
the performance of most of the variables, including the radiation, flux, and
turbulence variables, at times creating dramatic differences in the r2
values. |
| |
|
| Teil von |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|