Comparison of Meso-Scale Modelled Fluxes and Measurements

  • Andrei Serafimovich
  • Christoph Thieme
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 229)


The Weather Research and Forecasting model was evaluated over a forested and a grassland ecosystem. The model run was initialized with three nested domains and the second Intensive Observation Period (IOP2) of the EGER-Project (ExchanGE processes in mountainous Regions) in June/July 2008 was simulated.

To evaluate the model, mean bias error, root mean square error, mean average error, index of agreement and coefficient of efficiency were calculated for the whole period of the IOP2 as well as for each single day. These difference measures were calculated with the “nearest” grid point and with an “interpolated” grid point. Pressure and wind direction were evaluated with their absolute values.

It was proved that the least domain provided better results for five of six meteorological parameters: temperature, wind speed, wind direction, global radiation, sensible and latent heat flux. This shows that a resolution of 1 km in space and half an hour in time makes sense. Furthermore, differences in model results and measured values caused by micrometeorological phenomena (e.g. cold-air flowing off mountains or mountain-valley—wind-systems) could be shown. These micrometeorological phenomena could not be simulated because the resolution of the terrestrial input is too low. The more accurate terrestrial input can lead to better forecast results. Furthermore, large-scale weather patterns have an influence on the forecast. A comparison of the statistical parameters calculated with “interpolated” or “nearest” methods showed that there is no significant difference between them.


Heat Flux Latent Heat Flux Global Radiation Bowen Ratio Intensive Observation Period 
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.


  1. Beljaars ACM (1994) The parameterization of surface fluxes in large-scale models under free convection. Q J R Meteorol Soc 121:255–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Charuchittipan D, Babel W, Mauder M, Leps JP, Foken T (2014) Extension of the averaging time of the eddy-covariance measurement and its effect on the energy balance closure. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 152:303–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chou MD, Suarez MJ (1994) An efficient thermal infrared radiation parameterization for use in general circulation models. NASA Tech Memo 104606 3:85Google Scholar
  4. Cressman GP (1959) An operational objective analysis system. Mon Weather Rev 87:367–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dyer AJ, Hicks BB (1970) Fluxgradient relationships in the constant flux layer. Q J R Meteorol Soc 96:715–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Foken T (2003) Lufthygienisch-bioklimatische Kennzeichnung des oberen Egertales (Fichtelgebirge bis Karlovy Vary). Bayreuther Forum Ökologie, 100. ISSN:0944-4122Google Scholar
  7. Foken T (2008a) The energy balance closure problem - an overview. Ecolog Appl 18:1351–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foken T (2008b) Micrometeorology. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  9. Foken T, Meixner F, Falge E, Zetzsch C, Serafimovich A, Bargsten A, Behrendt T, Biermann T, Breuninger C, Dix S, Gerken T, Hunner M, Lehmann-Pape L, Hens K, Jocher G, Kesselmeier J, Lüers J, Mayer JC, Moravek A, Plake D, Riederer M, Rütz F, Scheibe M, Siebicke L, Sörgel M, Staudt K, Trebs I, Tsokankunku A, Welling M, Wolff V, Zhu Z (2012) Coupling processes and exchange of energy and reactive and non-reactive trace gases at a forest site – results of the EGER experiment. Atmos Chem Phys 12:1923–1950. doi: 10.5194/acp-12-1923-2012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gerstberger P, Foken T, Kalbitz K (2004) The Lehstenbach and Steinkreuz chatchments in NE Bavaria, Germany. In: Matzner E (ed) Biogeochemistry of forested catchments in a changing environment: ecological studies, vol 172. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 15–41CrossRefGoogle 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. Hong S, Lakshmi V, Small EE, Chen F, Tewari M, Manning KW (2009) Effects of vegetation and soil moisture on the simulated land surface processes from the coupled WRF/Noah model. J Geophys Res 114:D18118. doi: 10.1029/2008JD011249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jiménez PA, Dudhia J (2013) On the ability of the WRF model to reproduce the surface wind direction over complex terrain. J Appl Meteor Climatol 52:1610–1617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jiménez PA, González-Rouco JF, García-Bustamante E, Navarro J, Montávez JP, de Arellano JVG, Dudhia J, Muñoz-Roldan A (2010) Surface wind regionalization over complex terrain: evaluation and analysis of a high-resolution WRF simulation. J Appl Meteor Climatol 49:268–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jorba O, Loridan T, Jiménez-Guerrero P, Baldasano JM (2008) Annual evaluation of WRF-ARW and WRF-NMM meteorological simulations over Europe. In: 9th annual WRF users workshop, 23–27 June 2008, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  16. Kain JS (2004) The KainFritsch convective parameterization: an update. J Appl Meteorol 43:170–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kracher D, Mengelkamp HT, Foken T (2009) The residual of the energy balance closure and its influence on the results of three SVAT models. Meteorol Z 18:647–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. LeMone MA, Chen F, Tewari M, Dudhia J, Geerts B, Miao Q, Coulter RL, Grossman RL (2010) Simulating the IHOP 2002 fair-weather CBL with the WRF-ARW-Noah modeling system. part II: structures from a few kilometers to 100 km across. Mon Weather Rev 138:745–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lin Y-L, Farley RD Orville HD (1983) Bulk parameterization of the snow field in a cloud model. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 86:9707–9714Google Scholar
  20. Lindzen RS (1981) Turbulence and stress owing to gravity wave and tidal breakdown. J Geophys Res 22:1065–1092Google Scholar
  21. Liu G, Liu Y, Endo S (2013) Evaluation of surface flux parameterizations with long-term ARM observations. Mon Weather Rev 141:773–797. doi: 10.1175/MWR-D-12-00095.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Loridan T, Grimmond CSB, Grossman-Clarke S, Chen F, Tewari M, Manning K, Martilli A, Kusaka H, Best M (2010) Trade-offs and responsiveness of the single-layer urban canopy parametrization in WRF: an offline evaluation using the MOSCEM optimization algorithm and field observations. Q J R Meteorol Soc 136:997–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mertens M (2001) Die Anwendung der Fuzzy-Set-Theorie auf die Modellierung von Stickstoffbilanzen im Weißenstädter Becken. Bayreuther Forum Ökologie 85:215Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Mölders N (2008) Suitability of the weather research and forecasting (WRF) model to predict the June 2005 fire weather for interior Alaska. Wea Forecasting 23:953–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paulson CA (1970) The mathematical representation of wind speed and temperature profiles in the unstable atmospheric surface layer. J Appl Meteorol 9:857–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Skamarock WC, Klemp JB, Dudhia J, Gill DO, Barker DM, Huang XY, Wang W, Powers JG (2008) A description of the advanced research WRF version 3. NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN475 + STR, p 113Google Scholar
  28. Stull RB (1988) An introduction to boundary layer meteorology. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, Boston, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Teuling AJ, Seneviratne SI, Stöckli R, Reichstein M, Moors E, Ciais P, Luyssaert S, Hurk B van den, Ammann C, Bernhofer C, Dellwik E, Gianelle D, Gielen B, Grünwald T, Klumpp K, Montagnani L, Moureaux C, Sottocornola M, Wohlfahrt G (2010) Contrasting response of European forest and grassland energy exchange to heatwaves. Nature Geosci 3:722–727Google Scholar
  30. Tewari M, Chen F, Wang W, Dudhia J, LeMone MA, Mitchell K, Ek M, Gayno G, Wegiel J, Cuenca RH (2004) Implementation and verification of the unified NOAH land surface model in the WRF model. In: 20th conference on weather analysis and forecasting/16th conference on numerical weather prediction, pp 11–15Google Scholar
  31. Twine TE, Kustas WP, Norman JM, Cook DR, Houser PR, Meyers TP, Prueger JH, Starks PJ, Wesely ML (2000) Correcting eddy-covariance flux underestimates over a grassland. Agric For Meteorol 103:279–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Valkonen T, Vihma T, Kirkwood S, Johansson M (2010) Fine-scale model simulation of gravity waves generated by Basen nunatak in antarctica. Tellus 62:319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Webb EK (1970) Profile relationships: the log-linear range, and extension to strong stability. Q J R Meteorol Soc 96:67–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Willmott CJ (1982) Some comments on the evaluation of model performance. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 63:1309–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Willmott CJ, Robeson SM, Matsuura K (2012) A refined index of model performance. Int J Climatol 32:2088–2094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilmot CSM, Rappenglück B, Li X, Cuchiara G (2014) MM5 v3.6.1 and WRF v3.5.1 model comparison of standard and surface energy variables in the development of the planetary boundary layer. Geosci Model Dev 7:2693–2707CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, GFZ German Research Centre for GeosciencesPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Institute of Biochemical Plant PathologyNeuherbergGermany

Personalised recommendations