Boundary-Layer Meteorology

, Volume 139, Issue 2, pp 261–281 | Cite as

Intercomparison of Planetary Boundary-Layer Parametrizations in the WRF Model for a Single Day from CASES-99

Article

Abstract

This study compares five planetary boundary-layer (PBL) parametrizations in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) numerical model for a single day from the Cooperative Atmosphere-Surface Exchange Study (CASES-99) field program. The five schemes include two first-order closure schemes—the Yonsei University (YSU) PBL and Asymmetric Convective Model version 2 (ACM2), and three turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) closure schemes—the Mellor–Yamada–Janjić (MYJ), quasi-normal scale elimination (QNSE), and Bougeault–Lacarrére (BouLac) PBL. The comparison results reveal that discrepancies among thermodynamic surface variables from different schemes are large at daytime, while the variables converge at nighttime with large deviations from those observed. On the other hand, wind components are more divergent at nighttime with significant biases. Regarding PBL structures, a non-local scheme with the entrainment flux proportional to the surface flux is favourable in unstable conditions. In stable conditions, the local TKE closure schemes show better performance. The sensitivity of simulated variables to surface-layer parametrizations is also investigated to assess relative contributions of the surface-layer parametrizations to typical features of each PBL scheme. In the surface layer, temperature and moisture are more strongly influenced by surface-layer formulations than by PBL mixing algorithms in both convective and stable regimes, while wind speed depends on vertical diffusion formulations in the convective regime. Regarding PBL structures, surface-layer formulations only contribute to near-surface variability and then PBL mean properties, whereas shapes of the profiles are determined by PBL mixing algorithms.

Keywords

CASES-99 Intercomparison Parametrization Planetary boundary layer Surface layer Weather Research and Forecasting model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Banta RM, Newsom RK, Lundquist JK, Pichugina YL, Coulter RL, Mahrt L (2002) Nocturnal low-level jet characteristics over Kansas during CASES-99. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 105: 221–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bougeault P, Lacarrére P (1989) Parameterization of orography-induced turbulence in a mesobeta-scale model. Mon Weather Rev 117: 1872–1890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braun SA, Tao W-K (2000) Sensitivity of high-resolution simulations of hurricane Bob (1991) to planetary boundary layer parameterizations. Mon Weather Rev 128: 3941–3961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen F, Dudhia J (2001) Coupling an advanced land-surface/hydrology model with the Penn State/NCAR MM5 modeling system. Part I: model description and implementation. Mon Weather Rev 129: 569–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chou M-D, Suarez MJ (1999) A solar radiation parameterization for atmospheric studies. Technical report series on Global modeling and data assimilation 104606, vol 15, 38 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Cuxart J, Holtslag AAM, Beare RJ, Bazile E, Beljaars A, Cheng A, Conangla L, Ek M, Freedman F, Hamdi R, Kerstein A, Kitagawa H, Lenderink G, Lewellen D, Mailhot J, Mauritsen T, Perov V, Schayes G, Steeneveld G-J, Svensson G, Taylor P, Weng W, Wunsch S, Xu K-M (2006) Single-column model intercomparison for a stably stratified atmospheric boundary layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 118: 273–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ek MB, Mitchell KE, Lin Y, Rogers E, Grunmann P, Koren V, Gayno G, Tarpley JD (2003) Implementation of Noah land surface model advances in the National Centers for Environmental Prediction operational mesoscale Eta model. J Geophys Res 108: D22. doi:10.1029/2002JD003296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Galperin B, Sukoriansky S (2010) Progress in turbulence parameterization for geophysical flows. In: The 3rd international workshop on Next-generation NWP models: bridging parameterization, explicit clouds, and large eddies. Seoul, Korea, 5.4. http://nml.yonsei.ac.kr/20100829/content/agenda.html
  9. Holt T, Raman S (1988) A review and comparative evaluation of multilevel boundary layer parameterizations for first-order and turbulent kinetic energy closure models. Rev Geophys 26: 761–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holtslag AAM, Boville BA (1993) Local versus nonlocal boundary-layer diffusion in a global climate model. J Clim 6: 1825–1842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hong S-Y (2010) A new stable boundary-layer mixing scheme and its impact on the simulated East Asian summer monsoon. Q J Roy Meteorol Soc 136: 1481–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hong S-Y, Pan H-L (1996) Nonlocal boundary layer vertical diffusion in a medium-range forecast model. Mon Weather Rev 124: 2322–2339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hong S-Y, Noh Y, Dudhia J (2006) A new vertical diffusion package with an explicit treatment of entrainment processes. Mon Weather Rev 134: 2318–2341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Janjić ZA (1990) The step-mountain coordinate: physics package. Mon Weather Rev 118: 1429–1443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim Y-J, Hong S-Y (2009) Interaction between the orography-induced gravity wave drag and boundary layer processes in a global atmospheric model. Geophys Res Lett 36: L12809. doi:10.1029/2008GR037146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li X, Pu Z (2008) Sensitivity of numerical simulation of early rapid intensification of hurricane Emily (2005) to cloud microphysical and planetary boundary layer parameterizations. Mon Weather Rev 136: 4819–4838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mlawer EJ, Taubman SJ, Brown PD, Iacono MJ, Clough SA (1997) Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmosphere: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the long-wave. J Geophys Res 120: 16663–16682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Musson-Genon L (1995) Comparison of different simple turbulence closures with a one-dimensional boundary layer model. Mon Weather Rev 123: 163–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Noh Y, Cheon W-G, Hong S-Y (2003) Improvement of the K-profile model for the planetary boundary layer based on large eddy simulation data. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 107: 401–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nolan DS, Zhang JA, Stern DP (2009) Evaluation of planetary boundary layer parameterizations in tropical cyclones by comparison of in situ observations and high-resolution simulations of hurricane Isabel (2003). Part I: initialization, maximum winds, and the outer-core boundary layer. Mon Weather Rev 137: 3651–3674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pleim JE (2006) A simple, efficient solution of flux–profile relationships in the atmospheric surface layer. J Appl Meteorol Clim 45: 341–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pleim JE (2007a) A combined local and nonlocal closure model for the atmospheric boundary layer. Part I: model description and testing. J Appl Meteorol Clim 46: 1383–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pleim JE (2007b) A combined local and nonlocal closure model for the atmospheric boundary layer. Part II: application and evaluation in a mesoscale meteorological model. J Appl Meteorol Clim 46: 1396–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Poulos GS, Blumen W, Fritts DC, Lundquist JK, Sun J, Burns SP, Nappo C, Banta R, Newsom R, Cuxart J, Terradellas E, Balsley B, Jensen M (2002) CASES-99: a comprehensive investigation of the stable nocturnal boundary layer. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 83: 555–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sharan M, Gopalakrishnan SG (1997) Comparative evaluation of eddy exchange coefficients for strong and weak wind stable boundary layer modeling. J Appl Meteorol 36: 545–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Skamarock WC, Klemp JB, Dudhia J, Gill DO, Barker DM, Duda MG, Huang X-Y, Wang W, Powers JG (2008) A description of the advanced research WRF version 3. NCAR TECHNICAL NOTE, NCAR/TN-475+STR, 113 ppGoogle Scholar
  27. Steeneveld GJ, Mauritsen T, DeBruijn EIF, DeArellano JV-G, Svensson G, Holtslag AAM (2008) Evaluation of limited-area models for the representation of the diurnal cycle and contrasting nights in CASES-99. J Appl Meteorol Clim 47: 869–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Storm B, Dudhia J, Basu S, Swift A, Giammanco I (2009) Evaluation of the Weather Research and Forecasting model on forecasting low-level jets: implication for wind energy. Wind Energy 12: 81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stull RB (1988) An introduction to boundary layer meteorology. Kluwer, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  30. Sukoriansky S, Galperin B, Perov V (2005) Application of a new spectral theory of stable stratified turbulence to the atmospheric boundary layer over sea ice. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 117: 231–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Svensson G, Holtslag AAM (2006) Single column modeling of the diurnal cycle based on CASES99 data-GABLS second intercomparison project. In: 17th symposium on Boundary layers and turbulence. American Meteorological Society, San Diego, CA, Paper 8.1Google Scholar
  32. van de Wiel BJH, Moene AF, Hartogensis OK, de Bruin HAR, Holtslag AAM (2003) Intermittent turbulence in the stable boundary layer over land. Part III: a classification for observations during CASES-99. J Atmos Sci 60: 2509–2522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang D, Anthes RA (1982) A high-resolution model of the planetary boundary layer—sensitivity tests and comparison with SESAME-79 data. J Appl Meteorol 21: 1594–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Atmospheric Sciences, College of ScienceYonsei UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations