Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics

, Volume 119, Issue 1–2, pp 1–16 | Cite as

Limited area NWP and regional climate modeling: a test of the relaxation vs Eta lateral boundary conditions

Original Paper


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.


  1. Brill KF (2009) A general analytic method for assessing sensitivity to bias of performance measures for dichotomous forecasts. Weather Forecast 24:307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brill KF, Mesinger F (2009) Applying a general analytic method for assessing bias sensitivity to bias adjusted threat and equitable threat scores. Weather Forecast 24:1748–1754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Charney JG, Fjørtoft R, von Neumann J (1950) Numerical integration of the barotropic vorticity equation. Tellus 2:237–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen JH, Miyakoda K (1974) A nested grid computation for the barotropic free surface atmosphere. Mon Weather Rev 102:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davies HC (1976) A lateral boundary formulation for multi-level prediction models. Q J R Meteorol Soc 102:405–418Google Scholar
  7. Davies HC (1983) Limitations of some common lateral boundary condition schemes used in regional NWP models. Mon Weather Rev 111:1002–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Durran DD (1999) Numerical methods for wave equations in geophysical fluid dynamics. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Elvius T (1977) Experiments with a primitive equations model for limited area forecasts. Contrib Atmos Phys 50:367–392Google Scholar
  10. Elvius T, Sundström A (1973) Computationally efficient schemes and boundary conditions in a fine-mesh barotropic model based on the shallow-water equations. Tellus 25:132–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feser F, Rockel B, von Storch H, Winterfeldt J, Zahn M (2011) Regional climate models add value to global model data: a review and selected examples. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 92(9):1181–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giorgi F (2006) Regional climate modeling: status and perspectives. J Phys IV France, 139:101–118. doi: 10.1051/jp4:2006139008 ( Scholar
  13. Hamill TM (1999) Hypothesis tests for evaluating numerical precipitation forecasts. Weather Forecast 14:155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamill TM, Juras J (2006) Measuring forecast skill: is it real skill or is it the varying climatology? Q J R Meteorol Soc 132:2905–2923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hogan RJ, Christopher ATF, Jolliffe IT, Stephenson DB (2010) Equitability revisited: why the “Equitable Threat Score” is not equitable. Weather Forecast 25:710–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Kalnay E (2002) Atmospheric modeling, data assimilation and predictability. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kar SK, Turco RP (1995) Formulation of a lateral sponge layer for limited-area shallow-water models and an extension for the vertically stratified case. Mon Weather Rev 123:1542–1559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Laprise R, de Elía R, Caya D, Biner S, Lucas-Picher P, Diaconescu E, Leduc M, Alexandru A, Separovic L (2008) Challenging some tenets of regional climate modelling. Meteorol Atmos Phys 100:3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lehmann R (1993) On the choice of relaxation coefficients for Davies’ lateral boundary scheme for regional weather prediction models. Meteorol Atmos Phys 52:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McDonald A (1997) Lateral boundary conditions for operational regional forecast models; a review. HIRLAM Technical Report 32. Irish Meteorological Service, Dublin, p 32Google Scholar
  22. McDonald A (2003) Transparent boundary conditions for the shallow-water equations: testing in a nested environment. Mon Weather Rev 131(4):698–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mesinger F (1973) A method for construction of second-order accuracy difference schemes permitting no false two-grid-interval wave in the height field. Tellus 25:444–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Mesinger F (1977) Forward-backward scheme, and its use in a limited area model. Contrib Atmos Phys 50:200–210Google Scholar
  26. Mesinger F (2008) Bias adjusted precipitation threat scores. Adv Geosci 16:137–143 ( Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Mesinger F, Popovic J (2010) Forward–backward scheme on the B/E grid modified to suppress lattice separation: the two versions, and any impact of the choice made? Meteorol Atmos Phys 108:1–8. doi: 10.1007/s00703-010-0080-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mesinger F, DiMego G, Kalnay E, Mitchell K, Shafran PC, Ebisuzaki W, Jovic D, Woollen J, Rogers E, Berbery EH, Ek MB, Fan Y, Grumbine R, Higgins W, Li H, Lin Y, Manikin G, Parrish D, Shi W (2006) North American regional reanalysis. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 87(3):343–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 (
  31. Oddo P, Pinardi N (2008) Lateral open boundary conditions for nested limited area models: a scale selective approach. Ocean Model 20:134–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oliger J, Sundström A (1978) Theoretical and practical aspects of some initial boundary value problems in fluid dynamics. SIAM J Appl Math 35:419–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Phillips NA, Shukla J (1973) On the strategy of combining coarse and fine grid meshes in numerical weather prediction. J Appl Meteorol 12:763–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Russell GL (2007) Step-mountain technique applied to an atmospheric C-grid model, or how to improve precipitation near mountains. Mon Weather Rev 135(12):4060–4076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Vannitsem S, Chomé F (2005) One-way nested regional climate simulations and domain size. J Clim 18:229–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Veljovic K, Rajkovic B, Fennessy MJ, Altshuler EL, Mesinger F (2010) Regional climate modeling: should one attempt improving on the large scales? Lateral boundary condition scheme: any impact? Meteor Zeitschrift 19:237–246. doi: 10.1127/0941-2948/2010/0460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vitart F, Buizza R, Balmaseda MA, Balsamo G, Bidlot J-R, Bonet A, Fuentes M, Hofstadler A, Molteni F, Palmer TN (2008) The new VarEPS-monthly forecasting system: a first step towards seamless prediction. Q J R Meteorol Soc 134:1789–1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. von Storch H, Langenberg H, Feser F (2000) A spectral nudging technique for dynamical downscaling purposes. Mon Weather Rev 128(10):3664–3673CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center (ESSIC)University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Serbian Academy of Sciences and ArtsBelgradeSerbia
  3. 3.Institute of Meteorology, Faculty of Physics, University of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations