Advertisement

Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 174, Issue 11, pp 4197–4224 | Cite as

Interaction of Sea Breeze and Deep Convection over the Northeastern Adriatic Coast: An Analysis of Sensitivity Experiments Using a High-Resolution Mesoscale Model

  • Gabrijela Kehler-Poljak
  • Maja Telišman PrtenjakEmail author
  • Marko Kvakić
  • Kristina Šariri
  • Željko Večenaj
Article

Abstract

This study investigates the sensitivity of a high-resolution mesoscale atmospheric model in the model reproduction of thermally induced local wind (i.e., sea breezes, SB) on the development of deep convection (Cb). The three chosen cases are simulated by the Weather and Research Forecasting (WRF-ARW) model at three (nested) model domains, whereas the area of the interest is Istria (peninsula in the northeastern Adriatic). The sensitivity tests are accomplished by modifying (1) the model setup, (2) the model topography and (3) the sea surface temperature (SST) distribution. The first set of simulations (over the three 1.5-day periods during summer) is conducted by modifying the model setup, i.e., microphysics and the boundary layer parameterizations. The same events are simulated with the modified topography where the mountain heights in Istria are reduced to 30% of their initial height. The SST distribution has two representations in the model: a constant SST field from the ECMWF skin temperature analysis and a varying SST field, which is provided by hourly geostationary satellite data. A comprehensive set of numerical experiments is statistically analyzed through several different approaches (i.e., the standard statistical measures, the spectral method and the image moment analysis). The overall model evaluation of each model setup revealed certain advantages of one model setup over the others. The numerical tests with the modified topography showed the influence of reducing the mountains heights on the pre-thunderstorm characteristics due to: (1) decrease of sensible heat flux and mid-tropospheric moisture and (2) change of slope-SB wind system. They consequently affect the evolution and dimensions of SBs and the features of the thunderstorm itself: timing, location and intensity (weaker storm). The implementation of the varying SST field in the model have an impact on the characteristics and dynamics of the SB and finally on the accuracy of Cb evolution, duration and the intensity. SST variations emphasized the importance of the phase matching in both daytime cycles of SB and Cb due to their extremely strong nonlinear relationship.

Keywords

Sea breeze convection SST WRF the image moments analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to the Meteorological and Hydrological Service of the Republic of Croatia for providing the meteorological data and to the Slovenian Environment Agency for providing radar images. METAR reports are available from website, http://www.wunderground.com. This research was supported by the ECMWF (http://www.ecmwf.int/) data and the SEVIRI data, which are accessible through the EUMETSAT Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility (http://www.osi-saf.org). We would like to thank Igor Tomažić for creating the SST fields in the WRF model (freely available at http://www.wrf-model.org/index.php). This work contributes to the VITCLIC project and HyMeX programme. We thank to the Editor and anonymous referees for their in-depth review and valuable suggestions.

Supplementary material

24_2017_1607_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1056 kb)

References

  1. Acs, F., Gyöngyösi, A. Z., Breuer, H., Horváth, A., Mona, T., & Rajkai, K. (2014). Sensitivity of WRF-simulated planetary boundary layer height to land cover and soil changes. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 23, 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrejczuk, M., Moszkowicz, S., Haman, K. E., & Szoplik, T. (2003). Radar-echo tracking by use of invariant moments. Applied Optics, 42, 5891–5896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arakawa, A., & Jung, J.-H. (2011). Multiscale modeling of the moist-convective atmosphere—A review. Atmospheric Research, 102, 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babić, K., Mikuš, P., & Prtenjak, M. T. (2012). The relationship between shallow thermal circulation regimes and cumulonimbus clouds along the northeastern Adriatic coast. Geofizika, 29, 103–120.Google Scholar
  5. Barthlott, C., & Kirshbaum, D. J. (2013). Sensitivity of deep convection to terrain forcing over Mediterranean islands. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 139, 1762–1779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaver, S., Tanrikulu, S., Palazoglu, A., Singh, A., Soong, S. T., Jia, Y., et al. (2010). Pattern-based evaluation of coupled meteorological and air quality models. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 49, 2077–2091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bellerby, T. J. (2004). A feature-based approach to satellite precipitation monitoring using geostationary IR imagery. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 5, 910–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bougeault, P., & Lacarrère, P. (1989). Parameterization of orography-induced turbulence in a mesobeta-scale model. Monthly Weather Review, 17, 1872–1890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooks, H. E., Lee, J. W., & Craven, J. P. (2003). The spatial distribution of severe thunderstorm and tornado environments from global reanalysis data. Atmospheric Research, 67–68, 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Challa, V. S., Indracanti, J., Rabarison, M. K., Patrick, C., Baham, J. M., Young, J., et al. (2009). A simulation study of mesoscale coastal circulations in Mississippi Gulf coast. Atmospheric Research, 91, 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, S.-H., & Sun, W.-Y. (2002). A one-dimensional time-dependent cloud model. Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan, 80, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, A. J., Gallus, W. A., Jr., & Weisman, M. L. (2010a). Neighborhood-based verification of precipitation forecasts from convection-allowing NCAR WRF model simulations and the operational NAM. Weather and Forecasting, 25, 1495–1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, A. J., Gallus, W. A., Jr., Xue, M., & Kong, F. (2010b). Growth of spread in convection-allowing and convection-parameterizing ensembles. Weather and Forecasting, 25, 594–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, A. E., Cavallo, S. M., Coniglio, M. C., & Brooks, H. E. (2015). A review of planetary boundary layer parameterization schemes and their sensitivity in simulating southeastern U.S. cold season severe weather environments. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 30, 591–612.Google Scholar
  15. Crook, N. A. (1996). Sensitivity of moist convection forced by boundary layer processes to low-level thermodynamic fields. Monthly Weather Review, 129, 1550–1563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crook, N. A. (2001). Understanding Hector: The dynamics of island thunderstorms. Monthly Weather Review, 124, 1767–1785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crosman, E. T., & Horel, J. D. (2010). Sea and lake breezes: A review of numerical studies. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 137, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Demoli, N., Mrčela, I., & Šariri, K. (2013). Correlation and image moment approaches to analyze the Glagolitic script carved in stone tablets. Optik, 124, 1424–1430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dudhia, J. (1989). Numerical study of convection observed during the winter monsoon experiment using a mesoscale two-dimensional model. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 46, 3077–3107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dudhia, J. (1996). A multi-layer soil temperature model for MM5. The Sixth PSU/NCAR Mesoscale Model Users’ Workshop, pp. 22–24.Google Scholar
  21. Feudale, L., & Manzato, A. (2014). Cloud-to-ground lightning distribution and its relationship with orography and anthropogenic emissions in the Po Valley. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 53, 2651–2670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Feudale, L., Manzato, A., & Micheletti, S. (2013). A cloud-to-ground lightning climatology for north-eastern Italy. Advances in Science and Research, 10, 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Franchito, S. H., Rao, V. B., Stech, J. L., & Lorenzzetti, J. A. (1998). The effect of coastal upwelling on the sea-breeze circulation at Cabo Frio, Brazil: A numerical experiment. Annales Geophysicae, 16, 866–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Franchito, S. H., Toda, T. O., Rao, V. B., & Kayano, M. T. (2008). Interaction between coastal upwelling and local winds at Cabo Frio, Brazil: An observational study. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 47, 1590–1598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gilland, E. K., & Rowe, C. M. (2012). A comparison of cumulus parameterization schemes in the WRF model. 2012 AMS annual meeting, P2.16. https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/120591.pdf. Accessed December 2, 2016.
  26. Givati, A., Lynn, B., Liu, Y., & Rimmer, A. (2012). Using the WRF model in an operational stream forecast system for the Jordan River. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 51, 285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gómez-Navarro, J. J., Raible, C. C., & Dierer, S. (2015). Sensitivity of the WRF model to PBL parametrisations and nesting techniques: Evaluation of wind storms over complex terrain. Geoscientific Model Development, 8, 3349–3363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Güttler, I., Stepanov, I., Branković, Č., Nikulin, G., & Jones, C. (2015). Impact of horizontal resolution on precipitation in complex orography simulated by the regional climate model RCA3. Monthly Weather Review, 143, 3610–3627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hong, S. Y., & Lim, J. O. (2006). The WRF single-moment 6-class microphysics scheme (WSM6). Journal of the Korean Meteorological Society, 42, 129–151.Google Scholar
  30. Hong, S. Y., Noh, Y., & Dudhia, J. (2006). A new vertical diffusion package with an explicit treatment of entrainment processes. Monthly Weather Review, 134, 2318–2341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Horvath, K., & Vilibić, I. (2014). Atmospheric mesoscale conditions during the Boothbay meteotsunami: a numerical sensitivity study using a high-resolution mesoscale model. Natural Hazards, 74, 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Janjić, Z. I. (1994). The step-mountain eta coordinate model: Further developments of the convection, viscous sublayer, and turbulence closure schemes. Monthly Weather Review, 122, 927–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jury, M. R., & Chiao, S. (2013). Leeside boundary layer confluence and afternoon thunderstorms over Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 52, 439–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kessler, E. (1995). On the continuity and distribution of water substance in atmospheric circulations. Atmospheric Research, 38, 109–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kleczek, M. A., Steeneveld, G.-J., & Holtslag, A. A. M. (2014). Evaluation of the weather research and forecasting mesoscale model for GABLS3: Impact of boundary-layer schemes, boundary conditions and spin-up. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 152, 213–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lin, Y.-L., Richard, D. F., & Harold, D. O. (1983). Bulk parameterization of the snow field in a cloud model. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 22, 1065–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mayor, Y. G., & Mesquita, M. D. S. (2015). Numerical simulations of the 1 May 2012 deep convection event over Cuba: Sensitivity to cumulus and microphysical schemes in a high-resolution model. Advances in Meteorology, 2015. doi: 10.1155/2015/973151.
  38. Menendez, M., Garcia-Diez, M., Fita, L., Fernandez, J., Mendez, F. J., & Gutierrez, F. J. (2014). High-resolution sea wind hindcasts over the Mediterranean area. Climate Dynamics, 42, 1857–1872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meteorological Office. (1962). Weather in the Mediterranean (Vol. 1). London: General Meteorology, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  40. Miao, J. F., Wyser, K., Chen, D., & Ritchie, H. (2009). Impacts of boundary layer turbulence and land surface process parameterizations on simulated sea breeze characteristics. Annales Geophysicae, 27, 2303–2320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Miglietta, M. M., Moscatello, A., Conte, D., Mannarini, G., Lacorata, G., & Rotunno, R. (2011). Numerical analysis of a Mediterranean ‘Hurricane’ over south-eastern Italy: Sensitivity experiments to sea surface temperature. Atmospheric Research, 101, 412–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mikuš, P., Prtenjak, M. T., & Strelec-Mahović, N. (2012). Analysis of the convective activity and its synoptic background over Croatia. Atmospheric Research, 104–105, 139–153.Google Scholar
  43. Milovac, J., Warrach-Sagi, K., Behrendt, A., Späth, F., Ingwersen, J., & Wulfmeyer, V. (2016). Investigation of PBL schemes combining the WRF model simulations with scanning water vapor differential absorption lidar measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research, 121, 624–649 (2016). doi: 10.1002/2015JD023927.Google Scholar
  44. Mlawer, E. J., Taubmanm, S. J., Brown, P. D., Iacono, M. J., & Clough, S. A. (1997). Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the longwave. Journal of Geophysical Research, 102, 16663–16682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mohan, M., & Bhati S., (2011). Analysis of WRF model performance over subtropical region of Delhi, India. Advances in Meteorology, 2011. doi: 10.1155/2011/621235.
  46. Penzar, B., Penzar, I., & Orlić, M. (2001). Vrijeme i klima hrvatskog Jadrana. Zagreb: Nakladna kuća Dr. Feletar.Google Scholar
  47. Petrova, S., Mitzeva, R., & Kotroni, V. (2014). Summer-time lightning activity and its relation with precipitation: Diurnal variation over maritime, coastal and continental areas. Atmospheric Research, 135–136, 388–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pielke, R. A. (2002). Mesoscale meteorological modeling. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  49. Poljak, G., Prtenjak, M. T., Kvakić, M., Strelec-Mahović, N., & Babić, K. (2014). Wind patterns associated with the development of daytime thunderstorms over Istria. Annales Geophysicae, 32, 401–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Prein, A. F., Gobiet, A., Truhetz, H., Keuler, K., Goergen, K., Teichmann, C., et al. (2016). Precipitation in the EURO-CORDEX 0.11° and 0.44° simulations: High resolution, high benefits? Climate Dynamics, 46, 383–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Prtenjak, M. T. (2003). Main characteristics of sea/land breezes along the eastern coast of the northern Adriatic. Geofizika, 20, 75–92.Google Scholar
  52. Prtenjak, M. T., Grisogono, B., & Nitis, T. (2006). Shallow mesoscale flows at the north-eastern Adriatic coast. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 132, 2191–2216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Prtenjak, M. T., Horvat, I., Tomažić, I., Kvakić, M., Viher, M., & Grisogono, B. (2015). Impact of mesoscale meteorological processes on anomalous radar propagation conditions over the northern Adriatic area. Journal of Geophysical Research, 120, 8759–8782.Google Scholar
  54. Prtenjak, M. T., Pasarić, Z., Orlić, M., & Grisogono, B. (2008). Rotation of sea/land breezes along the northeastern Adriatic coast. Annales Geophysicae, 26, 1711–1724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Segal, M., & Pielke, R. A. (1985). On the effect of water temperature and synoptic flows on the development of surface flows over narrow elongated water bodies. Journal of Geophysical Research, 90, 4907–4910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Skamarock, W. C., & Klemp, J. B. (2008). A time-split nonhydrostatic atmospheric model for weather research and forecasting applications. Journal of Computational Physics, 227, 3465–3485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Skamarock, W. C., Klemp, J. B., Dudhia, J., Gill, D. O., Barker, D. M., Duda, M. G., et al. (2008). A description of the advanced research WRF version 3, NCAR/TN-475+STR. Boulder: NCAR.Google Scholar
  58. Sović, I., Šariri, K., & Živčić, M. (2013). High frequency microseismic noise as possible earthquake precursor. Research in Geophysics, 3, 8–12.Google Scholar
  59. Stanešić, A., & Brewster, K. A. (2015). Impact of radar data assimilation on the numerical simulation of a severe storm in Croatia. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 25, 37–53.Google Scholar
  60. Sweeney, J. K., Chagnon, J. M., & Gray, S. L. (2014). A case study of sea breeze blocking regulated by sea surface temperature along the English south coast. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 14, 4409–4418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tang, Y. (2012). The effect of variable sea surface temperature on forecasting sea fog and sea breezes: A case study. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 51(986–990), 2012.Google Scholar
  62. Teague, M. R. (1980). Image analysis via the general theory of moments. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 70, 920–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Teixeira, J. C., Carvalho, A. C., Carvalho, M. J., Luna, T., & Rocha, A. (2014). Sensitivity of the WRF model to the lower boundary in an extreme precipitation event—Madeira island case study. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 14, 2009–2025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thunis, P., & Bornstein, R. (1996). Hierarchy of mesoscale flow assumptions and equations. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 53, 380–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. van Delden, A. (2001). The synoptic setting of thunderstorms in western Europe. Atmospheric Research, 56, 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Večenaj, Ž., Belušić, D., Grubišić, V., & Grisogono, B. (2012). Along-coast features of the bora related turbulence. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 143, 527–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wang, D., Miao, J., & Tan, Z. (2013). Impacts of topography and land cover change on thunderstorm over the Huangshan (Yellow Mountain) area of China. Natural Hazards, 67, 675–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wee, C.-Y., & Paramesran, R. (2007). On the computational aspects of Zernike moments. Image and Vision Computing, 25, 967–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weisman, M. L., Christopher, D., Wang, W., Manning, K. W., & Klemp, J. B. (2008). Experiences with 0–36-h explicit convective forecasts with the WRF-ARW model. Weather and Forecasting, 23, 407–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Žabkar, R., Koračin, D., & Rakovec, J. (2013). A WRF/Chem sensitivity study using ensemble modelling for a high ozone episode in Slovenia and the northern Adriatic area. Atmospheric Environment, 77, 990–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geophysics, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.INRA, UMR 1391 ISPAVillenave d’OrnonFrance
  3. 3.Croatian Metrology InstituteZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations