Comparison of Meso-Scale Modelled Fluxes and Measurements
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.
KeywordsHeat Flux Latent Heat Flux Global Radiation Bowen Ratio Intensive Observation Period
- Chou MD, Suarez MJ (1994) An efficient thermal infrared radiation parameterization for use in general circulation models. NASA Tech Memo 104606 3:85Google Scholar
- Foken T (2003) Lufthygienisch-bioklimatische Kennzeichnung des oberen Egertales (Fichtelgebirge bis Karlovy Vary). Bayreuther Forum Ökologie, 100. ISSN:0944-4122Google Scholar
- Foken T (2008b) Micrometeorology. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Lindzen RS (1981) Turbulence and stress owing to gravity wave and tidal breakdown. J Geophys Res 22:1065–1092Google Scholar
- 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
- Mertens M (2001) Die Anwendung der Fuzzy-Set-Theorie auf die Modellierung von Stickstoffbilanzen im Weißenstädter Becken. Bayreuther Forum Ökologie 85:215Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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