Theoretical and Applied Climatology

, Volume 109, Issue 3–4, pp 577–590

Sensitivity of MM5-simulated planetary boundary layer height to soil dataset: comparison of soil and atmospheric effects

  • Hajnalka Breuer
  • Ferenc Ács
  • Borbála Laza
  • Ákos Horváth
  • István Matyasovszky
  • Kálmán Rajkai
Original Paper

Abstract

The effects of two soil datasets on planetary boundary layer (PBL) height are analyzed, using model simulations. Simulations are performed with the MM5 weather prediction system over the Carpathian Basin, with 6 km horizontal resolution, investigating three summer days, two autumn, and one winter day of similar synoptic conditions. Two soil datasets include that of the United States Department of Agriculture, which is globally used, and a regional Hungarian called Hungarian unsaturated soil database. It is shown that some hydraulic parameter values between the two datasets can differ up to 5–50%. These differences resulted in 10% deviations in the space–time-averaged PBL height (averaged over Hungary and over 12 h in the daytime period). Over smaller areas, these relative deviations could reach 25%. Daytime course changes in the PBL height for reference run conditions were significant (p < 0.01) in ≈70% of the grid points covering Hungary. Ensemble runs using different atmospheric parameterizations and soil moisture initialization setups are also performed to analyze the sensitivity under changed conditions. In these cases, the sensitivity test showed that irrespective of the radiation and PBL scheme, the effect of different soil datasets on PBL height is roughly the same. PBL height is also sensitive to field capacity (Θf) and wilting point (Θw) changes. Θf changes seem to be more important for loamy sand, while Θw changes for the clay soil textural class.

References

  1. Abramopoulos F, Rosenzweig C, Choudhury B (1988) Improved ground hydrology calculations for global climate models (GCMs): soil water movement and evapotranspiration. J Climate 1:921–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ács F (2003) A comparative analysis of transpiration and bare soil evaporation. Bound-Layer Meteor 109:139–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ács F (2005) On transpiration and soil moisture content sensitivity to soil hydrophysical data. Bound-Layer Meteor 115:473–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ács F, Horváth á, Breuer H, Rubel F (2010) Effect of soil hydraulic parameters on the local convective precipitation. Meteorol Z 19:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alapaty K, Raman S, Niyogi D (1997) Uncertainty in the specification of surface characteristics: a study of prediction errors in the boundary layer. Bound-Layer Meteor 82:475–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arakawa A, Lamb VR (1977) Computational design of the basic dynamical process of the UCLA general circulation model. Methods Comput Phys 17:173–265Google Scholar
  7. Balsamo G, Pappenberger F, Dutra E, Viterbo P, van den Hurk B (2009) A revised land hydrology in the ECMWF model: a step towards daily water flux prediction in a fully-closed water cycle. Hydrol Process 25:1046–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bell KR, Blanchard BJ, Schmugge TJ, Witzak MW (1980) Analysis of the surface moisture variations within large field sites. Water Resour Res 16:796–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braun FJ, Schädler G (2005) Comparison of soil hydraulic parameterizations for mesoscale meteorological models. J Appl Meteorol 44:1116–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell GS (1974) A simple method for determining unsaturated conductivity from moisture retention data. Soil Sci 117:311–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen F, Dudhia J (2001a) 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
  12. Chen F, Dudhia J (2001b) Coupling an advanced land-surface/hydrology model with the Penn State/NCAR MM5 modeling system. Part II: preliminary model validation. Mon Weather Rev 129:587–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cosby BJ, Hornberger GM, Clapp RB, Ginn TR (1984) A statistical exploration of the relationships of soil moisture characteristics to the physical properties of soils. Water Resour Res 20(6):682–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cuenca R, Ek M, Mahrt L (1996) Impact of soil water property parameterization on atmospheric boundary layer simulation. J Geophys Res 101(D3):7269–7277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dudhia I, Gili D, Manning K, Wang W, Bruyere C (2005) PSU/NCAR mesoscale modeling system tutorial class notes and user’s guide: mm5 modelling system version 3. http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/mm5/documents/tutorial-v3-notes.html
  16. ECMWF (2007) Change to soil hydrology scheme in IFS cycle 32r3 http://www.ecmwf.int/products/changes/soil_hydrology_cy32r3/index.html
  17. Ek M, Cuenca RH (1994) Variation in soil parameters: implications for modeling surface fluxes and atmospheric boundary-layer development. Bound-Layer Meteor 70:369–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ek M, Mahrt L (1991) OSU 1-D PBL model user’s guide. Version 1.04, p 120 [Available from Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331-2209.]Google Scholar
  19. Filep Gy, Ferencz G (1999) Recommendation for improving the accuracy of soil classification on the basis of particle composition. Agrokém Talajt 48(3–4):305–320 (in Hungarian)Google Scholar
  20. Fodor N, Rajkai K (2005) Estimation of physical soil properties and their use in models. Agrokém Talajt 54:25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grell GA, Kuo Y-H, Pasch R (1991) Semi-prognostic tests of cumulus parameterization schemes in the middle latitudes. Mon Weather Rev 119(1):5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grell GA, Dudhia J, Stauffer D (1994) A description of the fifth generation Penn State/NCAR Mesoscale model. NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-398+STR, p 117Google Scholar
  23. Gyurácz J, Horváth G, Csörgő T, Bank L, Palkó S (2003) Influence of the macrosynoptical weather situations on the autumn migration of birds. The Ring 25(1–2):18–36Google Scholar
  24. Hack JJ, Boville BP, Brieglieb JT, Kiehl, Rasch PJ, Williamson DL (1993) Description of the NCAR community climate model (CCM2). NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN-382+STR, p 112Google Scholar
  25. Hess P, Bresowsky H (1952) Katalog der Grosswetterlagen Europas. Berichte das Deutschen Wetterdienstes in der US Zone. 33. Bad KissingenGoogle Scholar
  26. Hillel D (1980) Applications of soil physics. Academic Press, p 385Google Scholar
  27. Hong SY, Pan HL (1996) Nonlocal boundary layer vertical diffusion in a medium-range forecast model. Mon Weather Rev 124:2322–2339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Horváth Á, Ács F, Geresdi I (2006) Modelling of severe convective storms in Hungary on 18 April 2005. In: 2nd int. symposium on quantitative precipitation forecasting and hydrology, poster presentations, 4–8 June 2006, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  29. Horváth Á, Ács F, Breuer H (2009) On the relationship between soil, vegetation and severe convective storms: Hungarian case studies. Atmos Res 93:66–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Horváth Á, Ács F, Geresdi I (2007) Sensitivity of severe convective storms to soil hydraulic characteristics: a case study for 18 April, 2005. Időjárás 111:221–237Google Scholar
  31. Jacquemin B, Noilhan J (1990) Sensitivity study and validation of a land surface parametrization using the HAPEX-MOBILHY data set. Bound-Layer Meteor 52:93–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Janjic ZI (1990) The step-mountain coordinate: physical package. Mon Weather Rev 118:1429–1443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Janjic ZI (1994) The step-mountain eta coordinate: further development of the convection, viscous sublayer, and turbulent closure schemes. Mon Weather Rev 122:927–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kim CP, Entekhabi D (1998) Analysis of feedback mechanisms in the uncoupled and coupled land surface and mixed layer energy budgets. Bound-Layer Meteor 88:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mahrt L, Ek M (1984) The influence of atmosphere stability on potential evaporation. J Clim Appl Meteorol 23:222–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCumber MC, Pielke RA (1981) Simulation of the effects of surface fluxes of heat and moisture in a mesoscale numerical model. 1. Soil layer. J Geophys Res 86:9929–9938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mlawer EJ, Taubman SJ, Brown PD, Iacono MJ, Clough SA (1997) Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmosphere: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the longwave. J Geophys Res 102(D14):16663–16682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mölders N (2005) Plant- and soil-parameter-caused uncertainty of predicted surface fluxes. Mon Weather Rev 133:3498–3516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nemes A (2002) Unsaturated soil hydraulic database of Hungary: HUNSODA, Agrokém Talajt 51(1–2):17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nemes A, Rawls WJ, Pachepsky YA (2005) Influence of organic matter on the estimation of saturated hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:1330–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Niyogi D, Xue Y, Raman S (1999) Hydrological feedback in land atmosphere coupling: comparison of a tropical and mid-latitudinal regime. In: International conf. air quality management, Univ. Brunei - Darussalam, Bandar Seri Bagawan, Brunei - Darussalam, 15–19 November 1999Google Scholar
  42. Pan HL, Mahrt L (1987) Interaction between soil hydrology and boundary-layer development. Bound-Layer Meteor 38:185–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Péczely Gy (1961) The climatological characterisation of the macrosynoptic situations in Hungary. Orsz Meteorol Intéz. Kis Népsz Kiadv 32:128 (in Hungarian)Google Scholar
  44. Pongrácz R (2003) Joint effects of large scale circulation and atmospheric oscillations (ENSO, NAO) on regional climate parameters. PhD dissertation. Eötvös Loránd University, p 103 (in Hungarian)Google Scholar
  45. Quintanar A, Mahmood R, Loughrin JH, Lovanh NC (2008) A coupled MM5-Noah land surface model-based assessment of sensitivity of planetary boundary layer variables to anomalous soil moisture conditions. Phys Geogr 29:54–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rajkai K (1991) Measuring surface soil moisture content distribution by TDR method (in Hungarian). Hidrol Közlöny 71:37–43Google Scholar
  47. Raman S, Sims A, Ellis A, Boyles R (2005) Numerical simulation of mesoscale circulations in a region of contrasting soil types. Pure Appl Geophys 162:1698–1714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reen BP, Stauffer DR, Davis KJ, Desai AR (2006) A case study on the effects of heterogeneous soil moisture on mesoscale boundary-layer structure in the Southern Great Plains, U.S.A. Part II: mesoscale modelling. Bound-Layer Meteor 120:275–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reisner J, Rasmussen RM, Bruintjes RT (1998) Explicit forecasting of supercooled liquid water in winter storms using the MM5 mesoscale model. Q J R Meteorol Soc 124:1071–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shao Y, Irannejad P (1999) On the choice of soil hydraulic models in land-surface schemes. Bound-Layer Meteor 90:83–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smirnova TG, Brown JM, Benjamin SG (1997) Performance of different soil model configurations in simulating ground surface temperature and surface fluxes. Mon Weather Rev 125:1870–1884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Teuling AJ, Uijlenhoet R, van den Hurk B, Seneviratne SI (2009) Parameter sensitivity in LSMs: an analysis using stochastic soil moisture models and ELDAS soil parameters. J Hydrometeorol 10:751–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Troen I, Mahrt L (1986) A simple model of the atmospheric boundary layer; sensitivity to surface evaporation. Bound-Layer Meteor 37:129–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Várallyay Gy (1973) Soil moisture potential and a new apparatus for the determination of moisture retention curves in the low suction range (0–1 atmospheres). Agrokém Talajt 22:1–22 (in Hungarian)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hajnalka Breuer
    • 1
  • Ferenc Ács
    • 1
  • Borbála Laza
    • 1
  • Ákos Horváth
    • 2
  • István Matyasovszky
    • 1
  • Kálmán Rajkai
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of MeteorologyEötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Hungarian Meteorological ServiceSiófokHungary
  3. 3.Research Institute for Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry of the Hungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations