Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Temperature simulation by numerical modeling and feedback of geostatic data and horizontal domain resolution

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The accuracy of the Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) can be affected by multiple factors, including domain resolution, geostatic data, and model configuration. This study examined the sensitivity of simulated seasonal temperature to different geostatic data, horizontal domain resolutions, and configurations in Northeast Iran. During the investigation, the WRF model utilized Asymmetric Convective Model version 2 (ACM2) planetary boundary layer, WRF-single-moment-microphysics classes 6 (WSM6) Microphysic, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) Long-wave/short-wave radiation parameterization schemes, and Climate Forecast System version2 (CFSV2) initial and boundary conditions from Nov 2019 to Feb 2020. The default (States Geological Survey (USGS)/ Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)) and high-resolution (ASTER/Copernicus) geostatic data and inner domain resolutions 3 and 6 km were set for model simulation. The results revealed that following the physical configuration, the model simulation’s highest sensitivity was associated with the domain resolution and geostatic data. Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) had approximately similar results in the 6 km domain for both geostatic data, but the Mean Bias (MB) showed a cold Bias. The MB results were warmer when the horizontal resolution increased from 6 to 3 km. To obtain reliable temperature simulation, WRF was more sensitive to horizontal domain resolution than geostatic data. However, the accuracy of geostatic data affected the distribution of temperature patterns. A greater error appeared in the lower horizontal domain resolution (6 km) and low-resolution geostatic data (default), especially in complex terrains.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All experiments evaluated in this study can be replicated following the methods described above, using the CFSv2 data available, as cited in (Saha et al. 2014), and the WRF 4.3 (Skamarock et al. 2021).The simulation products produced during this study.

References

  • Abida R, Addad Y, Francis D, Temimi M, Nelli N, Fonseca R, Nesterov O, Bosc E (2022) Evaluation of the performance of the WRF Model in a hyper-arid environment: a sensitivity study. Atmosphere 13(6):985

    Google Scholar 

  • Agyeman RYK, Annor T, Lamptey B, Quansah E, Agyekum J, Tieku SA (2017) Optimal physics parameterization scheme combination of the weather research and forecasting model for seasonal precipitation simulation over Ghana. Advances in Meteorology 2017

  • Buchhorn M, Lesiv M, Tsendbazar N-E, Herold M, Bertels L, Smets B (2020) Copernicus global land cover layers—collection 2. Remote Sens 12(6):1044

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng F-Y, Byun DW (2008) Application of high resolution land use and land cover data for atmospheric modeling in the Houston–Galveston metropolitan area, part I: Meteorological simulation results. Atmos Environ 42(33):7795–7811

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chou M-D, Suarez MJ (1999) A solar radiation parameterization for atmospheric studies

  • De Meij A, and, and, Vinuesa J (2014) Impact of SRTM and Corine Land Cover data on meteorological parameters using WRF. Atmos Res 143:351–370

    Google Scholar 

  • De Meij A, Zittis G, Christoudias T (2019) On the uncertainties introduced by land cover data in high-resolution regional simulations. Meteorol Atmos Phys 131(5):1213–1223

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrova R, Danchovski V, Egova E, Vladimirov E, Sharma A, Gueorguiev O, Ivanov D (2019) Modeling the impact of urbanization on local meteorological conditions in Sofia. Atmosphere 10(7):366

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudhia J (1989) Numerical study of convection observed during the winter monsoon experiment using a mesoscale two-dimensional model. J Atmos Sci 46(20):3077–3107

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudhia J (1996) A multi-layer soil temperature model for MM5. Paper read at Preprints. The Sixth PSU/NCAR mesoscale model users’ workshop

  • Fels SB, Schwarzkopf M (1981) An efficient, accurate algorithm for calculating CO2 15 µm band cooling rates. J Geophys Research: Oceans 86(C2):1205–1232

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca D, Carvalho M, Marta-Almeida M, Melo-Gonçalves P, Rocha A (2016) Recent trends of extreme temperature indices for the Iberian Peninsula. Phys Chem Earth Parts A/B/C 94:66–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedl MA, McIver DK, Hodges JC, Zhang XY, Muchoney D, Strahler AH, Woodcock CE, Gopal S, Schneider A, Cooper A (2002) Global land cover mapping from MODIS: algorithms and early results. Remote Sens Environ 83(1–2):287–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Giovannini L, Antonacci G, Zardi D, Laiti L, Panziera L (2014a) Sensitivity of simulated wind speed to spatial resolution over complex terrain. Energy Procedia 59:323–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Giovannini L, Zardi D, de Franceschi M, Chen F (2014b) Numerical simulations of boundary-layer processes and urban‐induced alterations in an Alpine valley. Int J Climatol 34(4):1111–1131

    Google Scholar 

  • Grell GA, Dévényi D (2002) A generalized approach to parameterizing convection combining ensemble and data assimilation techniques. Geophys Res Lett 29(14):38–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunwani P, Sati AP, Mohan M, Gupta M (2021) Assessment of physical parameterization schemes in WRF over national capital region of India. Meteorol Atmos Phys 133:399–418

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen J, Johnson D, Lacis A, Lebedeff S, Lee P, Rind D, Russell G (1981) Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science 213(4511):957–966

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hong S-Y, Lim J-OJ (2006) The WRF single-moment 6-class microphysics scheme (WSM6). Asia-Pac J Atmos Sci 42(2):129–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong S-Y, Dudhia J, Chen S-H (2004) A revised approach to ice microphysical processes for the bulk parameterization of clouds and precipitation. Mon Weather Rev 132(1):103–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacono MJ, Delamere JS, Mlawer EJ, Shephard MW, Clough SA, Collins WD (2008) Radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases: calculations with the AER radiative transfer models. J Geophys Research: Atmos 113:D13

    Google Scholar 

  • Jandaghian Z, Akbari H (2018) The effect of increasing surface albedo on urban climate and air quality: a detailed study for Sacramento, Houston, and Chicago. Climate 6(2):19

    Google Scholar 

  • Janjić ZI (1994) The step-mountain eta coordinate model: further developments of the convection, viscous sublayer, and turbulence closure schemes. Mon Weather Rev 122(5):927–945

    Google Scholar 

  • Janjić ZI (2000) Comments on Development and evaluation of a convection scheme for use in climate models. J Atmos Sci 57(21):3686–3686

    Google Scholar 

  • Janić ZI (2001) Nonsingular implementation of the Mellor-Yamada level 2.5 scheme in the NCEP Meso model

  • Jee J-B, Kim S (2016) Sensitivity study on high-resolution numerical modeling of static topographic data. Atmosphere 7(7):86

    Google Scholar 

  • Ji-Hang L, Zhen-Hai G, Hui-Jun W (2014) Analysis of wind power assessment based on the WRF model. Atmospheric Ocean Sci Lett 7(2):126–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez PA, Dudhia J, González-Rouco JF, Navarro J, Montávez JP, García-Bustamante E (2012) A revised scheme for the WRF surface layer formulation. Mon Weather Rev 140(3):898–918

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Esteve B, Udina M, Soler MR, Pepin N, Miró JR (2018) Land use and topography influence in a complex terrain area: a high resolution mesoscale modelling study over the Eastern Pyrenees using the WRF model. Atmos Res 202:49–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Kain JS (2004) The Kain–Fritsch convective parameterization: an update. J Appl Meteorol 43(1):170–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Kain JS, Fritsch JM (1993) Convective parameterization for mesoscale models: the Kain-Fritsch scheme. Representation Cumulus Convection Numer Models 165–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-935704-13-3_16. Boston, MA: American Meteorological Society

  • Karkia S, Adhikarib N (2021) Surface Temperature Forecast over Dipayal using two-way nesting on Advanced Research and forecasting (ARW) WRF Modelling System. Dimension 94(91):40

    Google Scholar 

  • Khosravi G, Nafarzadegan AR, Nohegar A, Fathizadeh H, Malekian A (2015) A modified distance-weighted approach for filling annual precipitation gaps: application to different climates of Iran. Theoret Appl Climatol 119:33–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotlarski S, Szabó P, Herrera S, Räty O, Keuler K, Soares PM, Cardoso RM, Bosshard T, Pagé C, Boberg F (2019) Observational uncertainty and regional climate model evaluation: a pan-european perspective. Int J Climatol 39(9):3730–3749

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A, Chen F, Barlage M, Ek MB, Niyogi D (2014) Assessing impacts of integrating MODIS vegetation data in the weather research and forecasting (WRF) model coupled to two different canopy-resistance approaches. J Appl Meteorol Climatology 53(6):1362–1380

    Google Scholar 

  • LaCasse KM, Splitt ME, Lazarus SM, Lapenta WM (2008) The impact of high-resolution sea surface temperatures on the simulated nocturnal Florida marine boundary layer. Mon Weather Rev 136(4):1349–1372

    Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Mitra C, Dong L, Yang Q (2018) Understanding land use change impacts on microclimate using Weather Research and forecasting (WRF) model. Phys Chem Earth Parts A/B/C 103:115–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Meng X, Evans JP, and M. McCabe (2014b) The influence of inter-annually varying albedo on regional climate and drought. Clim Dyn 42(3):787–803

    Google Scholar 

  • Meng X, Evans J, McCabe M (2014a) The impact of observed vegetation changes on land–atmosphere feedbacks during drought. J Hydrometeorol 15(2):759–776

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer D, Riechert M (2019) Open source QGIS toolkit for the Advanced Research WRF modelling system. Environ Model Softw 112:166–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Mlawer EJ, Taubman SJ, Brown PD, Iacono MJ, Clough SA (1997) Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the longwave. J Geophys Research: Atmos 102(D14):16663–16682

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadrezapour O, AMIRI M, EBRAHIMI M, Amini RA (2019) Regional Drought Assessment based on Principle Component Analysis and GIS in Golestan Province.(In Persian)

  • Mooney P, Mulligan F, Fealy R (2013) Evaluation of the sensitivity of the weather research and forecasting model to parameterization schemes for regional climates of Europe over the period 1990–95. J Clim 26(3):1002–1017

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakanishi M, Niino H (2004) An improved Mellor–Yamada level-3 model with condensation physics: its design and verification. Boundary Layer Meteorol 112:1–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakanishi M, Niino H (2006) An improved Mellor–Yamada level-3 model: its numerical stability and application to a regional prediction of advection fog. Boundary Layer Meteorol 119:397–407

    Google Scholar 

  • Niu GY, Yang ZL, Mitchell KE, Chen F, Ek MB, Barlage M, Kumar A, Manning K, Niyogi D, Rosero E (2011) The community Noah land surface model with multiparameterization options (Noah-MP): 1. Model description and evaluation with local‐scale measurements. J Geophys Research: Atmos 116 (D12).

  • Pleim JE (2006) A simple, efficient solution of flux–profile relationships in the atmospheric surface layer. J Appl Meteorol Climatology 45(2):341–347

    Google Scholar 

  • Pleim JE (2007) A combined local and nonlocal closure model for the atmospheric boundary layer. Part I: model description and testing. J Appl Meteorol Climatology 46(9):1383–1395

    Google Scholar 

  • Saha S, Moorthi S, Wu X, Wang J, Nadiga S, Tripp P, Behringer D, Hou Y-T, Chuang H-y, Iredell M (2014) The NCEP climate forecast system version 2. J Clim 27(6):2185–2208

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos-Alamillos F, Pozo-Vázquez D, Ruiz-Arias J, Lara-Fanego V, Tovar-Pescador J (2013) Analysis of WRF model wind estimate sensitivity to physics parameterization choice and terrain representation in Andalusia (Southern Spain). J Appl Meteorol Climatology 52(7):1592–1609

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegmund J, Bliefernicht J, Laux P, Kunstmann H (2015) Toward a seasonal precipitation prediction system for West Africa: performance of CFSv2 and high-resolution dynamical downscaling. J Geophys Research: Atmos 120(15):7316–7339

    Google Scholar 

  • Siewert J, Kroszczynski K (2020) GIS data as a valuable source of information for increasing resolution of the WRF Model for Warsaw. Remote Sens 12(11):1881

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh K, Bhaskaran PK (2017) Impact of PBL and convection parameterization schemes for prediction of severe land-falling Bay of Bengal cyclones using WRF-ARW model. J Atmos Solar Terr Phys 165:10–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Skamarock WC, Klemp JB (2008) A time-split nonhydrostatic atmospheric model for weather research and forecasting applications. J Comput Phys 227(7):3465–3485

    Google Scholar 

  • Skamarock W, Klemp J, Dudhia J, Gill D, Liu Z, Berner J, Huang X (2021) A description of the advanced research WRF model version 4.3. NCAR/TN-556 + STR).[Software]

  • Smirnova TG, Brown JM, Benjamin SG, Kim D (2000) Parameterization of cold-season processes in the MAPS land‐surface scheme. J Geophys Research: Atmos 105(D3):4077–4086

    Google Scholar 

  • Stergiou I, Tagaris E, Sotiropoulou R-EP (2021) Investigating the WRF temperature and precipitation performance sensitivity to spatial resolution over central Europe. Atmosphere 12(2):278

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor KE (2001) Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram. J Geophys Research: Atmos 106(D7):7183–7192

    Google Scholar 

  • Tian D, Wood EF, Yuan X (2017) CFSv2-based sub-seasonal precipitation and temperature forecast skill over the contiguous United States. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 21(3):1477–1490

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y, Yang K, Zhou X, Chen D, Lu H, Ouyang L, Chen Y, Wang B (2020) Synergy of orographic drag parameterization and high resolution greatly reduces biases of WRF-simulated precipitation in central Himalaya. Clim Dyn 54(3):1729–1740

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiu A, Pleim JE (2001) Development of a land surface model. Part I: application in a mesoscale meteorological model. J Appl Meteorol Climatology 40(2):192–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan X, Wood EF, Luo L, Pan M (2011) A first look at Climate Forecast System version 2 (CFSv2) for hydrological seasonal prediction. Geophysical research letters 38 (13)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely thank the reviewers and the Editor of the Journal for reviewing the manuscript and providing critical comments to improve the quality of the paper. The authors acknowledge NASA for the public availability of datasets used in this study. In addition, the authors gratefully acknowledge the I.R. of Iran Meteorological Organization (IRIMO) for providing meteorological data from weather stations.

Funding

This research was not supported by any fund research project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Geography, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

    Elaheh Ghasemi Karakani, Hossein Mohammadi, Ghasem Azizi & Aliakbar Shamsipour

  2. Department of Synoptic Meteorology, Atmospheric Science and Meteorological Research Center, Tehran, Iran

    Ebrahim Fattahi

Authors
  1. Elaheh Ghasemi Karakani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hossein Mohammadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ghasem Azizi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aliakbar Shamsipour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ebrahim Fattahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hossein Mohammadi.

Ethics declarations

Supplementary Information

The historical 2m temperature data are available from the irimo Data Portal at https://www.data.irimo.ir, the seasonal climatic parameters including 2m temperature data are available from the NASA Climate forecast Portal at https://cfs.ncep.noaa.gov/cfsv2/downloads.html, The land use static data are available from the Copernicus Portal at https://land.copernicus.eu/global/products/lc, and The topography static data are available https://gdemdl.aster.jspacesystems.or.jp/index_en.html.

All regulations and restrictions of data use can be found at their portals.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karakani, E.G., Mohammadi, H., Azizi, G. et al. Temperature simulation by numerical modeling and feedback of geostatic data and horizontal domain resolution. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 10, 3845–3864 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-024-01990-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-024-01990-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation