Intercomparison of Planetary Boundary-Layer Parametrizations in the WRF Model for a Single Day from CASES-99
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.
KeywordsCASES-99 Intercomparison Parametrization Planetary boundary layer Surface layer Weather Research and Forecasting model
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Stull RB (1988) An introduction to boundary layer meteorology. Kluwer, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- 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