Advertisement

Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics

, Volume 122, Issue 1–2, pp 75–90 | Cite as

A down-valley low-level jet event during T-REX 2006

  • Sen ChiaoEmail author
  • Robert DumaisJr.
Original Paper

Abstract

A prolonged down-valley flow and low-level jet were observed throughout the Enhanced Observing Period 4 (April 28–29) of the 2006 Terrain-induced Rotor Experiment, held in the Owens Valley of California near the town of Independence. The low-level jet was strongest during the nocturnal hours, and special field observations captured important details of the event lifecycle. High-resolution simulations using the Weather Research and Forecasting numerical weather prediction model were generated, with underlying assumptions being that model resolution, boundary layer physics, and nesting configuration would be dominant controlling factors in reproducing the jet. The large-scale conditions were dry throughout the event, so moist physics were not a significant forcing consideration. For the control simulation, a two-nest (4.5 and 1.5 km grid spacing) configuration with 90 vertical levels was applied. Additionally, the Quasi-Normal Scale Elimination planetary boundary and surface layer option were selected due to its published performance under conditions of stable stratification. Three other sensitivity simulations were run for comparison, differing from the control just in the choice of vertical resolution (60 versus 90 levels with Quasi-Normal Scale Elimination) and planetary boundary/surface layer physics (90 levels/Mellor-Yamada-Jancic; 90 levels/Yonsei State University). Although the gross evolution (location, height, and timing) of the low-level jet is captured by all model runs (with the 1.5 km inner nest providing the more accurate details), there were at times large underestimations of the nocturnal jet speed max in each simulation (approaching 100 % error, or up to almost 10 m s−1). Overall, the variations of vertical resolution and planetary boundary/surface physics against the control seemed to (1) yield little overall improvement to statistical or subjective evaluations; (2) do little to improve deficiencies in reproducing the magnitude strength of the nocturnal down-valley low-level jet. Since the cold-start simulations spanned 36 h (including a 12-h spin-up period), it was suspected that the lateral boundary conditions imposed on the outermost 4.5 km nest might negatively impact the interior model solutions in the Owens Valley. To investigate this possibility, an additional simulation was executed by adding two extra nests to the control configuration: an outer 13.5 km and an inner 500 m. This simulation produced a better evolution of the nocturnal low-level jet and especially the speed max. The addition of the larger 13.5 km nest appears more critical to this improvement than that of the extra spatial resolution provided by the inner 500 m nest, which supports the idea that accurate capturing of the large-scale synoptic condition was critical in reproducing important details of this down-valley low-level jet event. The extra 500-m resolution did seem to improve the morning valley cold pool forecast.

Keywords

Planetary Boundary Layer Geostrophic Wind Cold Pool Army Research Laboratory Sierra Nevada Mountain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The critical reviews of three anonymous reviewers were very helpful. The AWS data (DRI, HOBOs, and Leeds) were gathered as part of the Terrain-induced Rotor Experiment (T-REX). We acknowledge the suppliers of datasets employed here. Dr. William Brown at NCAR/EOL provides the ISS2 data and plotting software for Fig. 2. Discussions with Drs., Walter Bach, Semion Sukoriansky and Boris Galperin were appreciated. The research was supported by the Grant W911NF-09-1-0441 from the US Army Research Office.

References

  1. Banta RM, Darby LS, Fast JD, Pinto JO, Whiteman CD, Shaw WJ, Orr BW (2004) Nocturnal low-level jet in a mountain basin complex. Part I: Evolution and effects on local flows. J Appl Meteorol 43:1348–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen F, Dudhia J (2001) Coupling an advanced land-surface/hydrology model with the Penn State/NCAR MM5 modeling system. Part I: Model implementation and sensitivity. Mon Weather Rev 129:569–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clements WE, Archuleta JA, Gudiksen PH (1989) Experimental Design of the 1984 ASCOT Field Study. J Appl Meteorol 28:405–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Doran JC, Fast JD, Horel JD (2002) The VTMX 2000 campaign. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 83(4):537–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dudhia J (1989) Numerical study of convection observed during the winter monsoon experiment using a mesoscale two-dimensional model. J Atmos Sci 46:3077–3107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dumais RE, Reen BP (2013) Data assimilation techniques for rapidly relocatable Weather Research and Forecast modeling. U.S. Army Research Laboratory Technical Note, ARL-TN-0546, July 2013Google Scholar
  7. Galperin B, Sukoriansky S, Perov V (2007) Implementation of the quasi-normal scale elimination (QNSE) turbulence model in WRF. In: The 8th WRF Users’ Workshop, Boulder, CO, June 11–15, 2007Google Scholar
  8. Galperin B, Sukoriansky S, Atlaskin E (2008) Study of the effect of the QNSE-based surface layer parameterization on the warm bias in simulations of stably stratified boundary layers. In: The 18th symposium on boundary layers and turbulence, 9–13 June 2008, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  9. Grubišić V, Doyle JD et al (2008) The Terrain-induced Rotor Experiment: an overview of the field campaign and some highlights of special observations. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 89:1513–1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gudiksen PH, Shearer DL (1989) The dispersion of atmospheric tracers in nocturnal drainage flows. J Appl Meteorol 22:602–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hong SY, Noh Y, Dudhia J (2006) A new vertical diffusion package with an explicit treatment of entrainment processes. Mon Weather Rev 134:2318–2341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Janjic ZI (2001) Nonsingular Implementation of the Mellor-Yamada Level 2.5 scheme in the NCEP meso model. National Centers for Environmental Prediction, Office Note #437Google Scholar
  13. Janjic ZI, Gerrity JP, Nickovic S (2001) An alternative approach to nonhydrostatic modeling. Mon Weather Rev 129:1164–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mellor GL, Yamada T (1982) Development of a turbulence closure model for geophysical fluid problems. Rev Geophys Space Phys 20:851–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mlawer EJ, Taubman SJ, Brown PD, Iacono MJ (1997) Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the longwave. J Geophys Res 102:16663–16682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mursch-Radlgruber E (1995) Observations of flow structure in a small forested valley system. Theor Appl Climatol 52:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Papadopoulos KH, Helmis CG (1999) Evening and morning transition of Katabatic flows. Bound Layer Meteorol 92:195–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pattantyus A, Dumais RE Jr (2013) Investigating lateral boundary forcing of Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model forecasts for artillery mission support. U.S. Army Research Laboratory Technical Memorandum, ARL-MR-0835, January 2013Google Scholar
  19. Pinto JO, Parsons DB, Brown WOJ, Cohn S, Chamberlain S, Morley B (2006) Coevolution of down-valley flow and the nocturnal boundary layer in complex terrain. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 45(10):1429–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Princevac M, Hunt JCR, Fernando HJS (2008) Quasi-steady katabatic winds on slopes in wide valleys: hydraulic theory and observations. J Atmos Sci 65:627–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schmidli J, Poulos GS, Mobbs S (2007) T-REX EOPs III: Mesoscale valley circulations and sensitivity to synoptic conditions. In: Proceedings of the 29th international conference on alpine meteorology, Chambery, Meteo-France, 4–8 June 2007Google Scholar
  22. Schmidli J, Poulos GS, Daniels MH, Chow FK (2009) External influences on nocturnal thermally driven flows in a deep valley. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 48:3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Seaman NL, Gaudet BJ, Stauffer DR, Mahrt L, Richardson SJ, Zielonka JR, Wyngaard JC (2012) Numerical prediction of submesoscale flow in the nocturnal stable boundary layer over complex terrain. Mon Wea Rev 140:956–977. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00061.1
  24. Skamarock WC, Klemp JB, Dudhia J, Gill DO, Barker DM, Duda M, Huang XY, Wang W, Powers JG (2008) A description of the advanced research WRF Version 3 NCAR Technical Note, 2008Google Scholar
  25. Sukoriansky S, Galperin B, Staroselsky I (2005) A quasi-normal scale elimination model of turbulent flows with stable stratification. Phys Fluids 17:85–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sukoriansky S, Galperin B, Perov V (2006) A quasi-normal scale elimination model of turbulence and its application to stably stratified flows. Nonlinear Process Geophys 13:9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thompson G, Rasmussen RM, Manning K (2004) Explicit forecasts of winter precipitation using an improved bulk microphysics scheme. Part 1: description and sensitivity analysis. Mon Weather Rev 132:519–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Triantafyllou AG, Helmis CG, Asimakopoulos DN, Soilemes AT (1995) Boundary layer evolution over large and broad mountain basin. Theor Appl Climatol 52:19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Whiteman CD, Zhong S (2008) Downslope flows on a low-angle slope and their interactions with valley inversions. Part I: Observations. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 47:2023–2038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Whiteman CD, McKee TB, Doran JC (1996) Boundary layer evolution within a canyon land basin. Part I. Mass, heat, and moisture budgets from observations. J Appl Meteorol 35:2145–2161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Whiteman CD, Hoch SW, Poulos GS (2009) Evening temperature rises on valley floors and slopes: their causes and their relationship to the thermally driven wind system. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 48:776–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhong S, Whiteman CD (2008) Downslope flows on a low-angle slope and their interactions with valley inversions. Part II: Numerical modeling. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 47:2039–2057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zumpfe DE, Horel JD (2007) Lake-breeze fronts in the Salt Lake Valley. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 46:196–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Meteorology and Climate ScienceSan Jose State UniversitySan JoseUSA
  2. 2.The US Army Research LaboratoryWhite Sand Missile RangeNew MexicoUSA

Personalised recommendations