Limited area NWP and regional climate modeling: a test of the relaxation vs Eta lateral boundary conditions
With very few exceptions, just about all limited area models (LAMs) used in operational NWP and regional climate modeling use the Davies (Q J R Meteorol Soc 102:405–418, 1976) relaxation lateral boundary conditions (LBCs), even though they make no effort to respect the basic mathematics of the problem. While in the early stages of the primitive equation LAM development in the seventies numerous schemes have been proposed and tested, LAM communities have eventually for the most part settled on the relaxation LBCs with few questions asked. An exception is the Eta model used extensively at NCEP and several other centers, in which the Mesinger (Contrib Atmos Phys 50:200–210, 1977) LBCs are used, designed and based on knowledge available before the introduction of the relaxation scheme. They prescribe variables along the outermost row of grid points only; all of them at the inflow points and one less at the outflow points where the tangential velocity components are extrapolated from inside of the model domain. Additional schemes are in place to suppress separation of gravity-wave solutions on C-subgrids of the model’s E-grid. A recent paper of Veljovic et al. (Meteor Zeitschrift 19:237–246, 2010) included three 32-day forecasts done with both the Eta and the relaxation LBCs and the comparison of some of their verification results. Here we extend this experiment by three additional forecasts to arrive at an ensemble of six members run with both schemes, and present a more complete discussion of results. We in addition show results of one of these forecasts in which the linear change of relaxation coefficients was replaced by the change following the recommendation of Lehmann (Meteorol Atmos Phys 52:1–14, 1993). We feel that the results of our two verification schemes strongly suggest the advantage of the Eta over the conventional relaxation scheme, thereby raising doubts as to the justification for its use.
This study was partially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia, under Grant No. 176013; and by the project F-147 of the Scientific Research Fund of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, Serbia. We have benefitted from several comments of Professor René Laprise, of the University of Quebec at Montreal. Finally, comments of anonymous reviewers are much appreciated as they have considerably contributed to the present content as well as the quality of the paper.
- Charney J (1962) Integration of the primitive and balance equations. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on numerical weather prediction, Tokyo. Japan Meteorological Agency, Tokyo, pp 131–152Google Scholar
- Davies HC (1976) A lateral boundary formulation for multi-level prediction models. Q J R Meteorol Soc 102:405–418Google Scholar
- Durran DD (1999) Numerical methods for wave equations in geophysical fluid dynamics. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Elvius T (1977) Experiments with a primitive equations model for limited area forecasts. Contrib Atmos Phys 50:367–392Google Scholar
- Jones RG, Murphy JM, Noguer M (1995) Simulation of climate change over Europe using a nested regional climate model. I: assessment of control climate, including sensitivity to location of lateral boundaries. Q J R Meteorol Soc 121:1413–1449Google Scholar
- McDonald A (1997) Lateral boundary conditions for operational regional forecast models; a review. HIRLAM Technical Report 32. Irish Meteorological Service, Dublin, p 32Google Scholar
- Mesinger F (1974) An economical explicit scheme which inherently prevents the false two-grid-interval wave in the forecast fields. In: Proceedings of the symposium on difference and spectral methods for atmosphere and ocean dynamics problems. Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, 17–22 September 1973; Part II, pp 18–34Google Scholar
- Mesinger F (1977) Forward-backward scheme, and its use in a limited area model. Contrib Atmos Phys 50:200–210Google Scholar
- Mesinger F, Janjic ZI (1974) Noise due to time-dependent boundary conditions in limited area models. The GARP Programme on Numerical Experimentation, Rep 4. WMO, Geneva, pp 31–32Google Scholar
- Mesinger F, Chou SC, Gomes JL, Jovic D, Bastos P, J. Bustamante JF, Lazic L, Lyra AA, Morelli S, Ristic I, Veljovic K (2012) An upgraded version of the Eta model. Meteorol Atmos Phys 116:63–79 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/0177-7971/116/3-4/)
- Rummukainen M (2010) State-of-the-art with regional climate models. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 1(1):82–96. doi: 10.1002/wcc.008
- Sundström A (1973) Theoretical and practical problems in formulating boundary conditions for a limited area model. Rep DM-9. Institute of Meteorology, Stockholm University, StockholmGoogle Scholar
- von Storch H (2005) Conceptual basis and applications of regional climate modeling. In: Bärring L, Laprise R (eds) Extended abstracts of a WMO/WCRP-sponsored regional-scale climate modelling workshop high-resolution climate modelling: assessment, added value and applications. Lund, Sweden, 29 March–2 April 2004. Lund eRep Phys Geogr No. 5, Department of Physical Geography & Ecosystems Analysis, Lund University, Sweden, ISSN:1402–9006Google Scholar