1 / 48

A case book of the Double Trouble State Park Wildfire (2002) Joseph J. Charney

A case book of the Double Trouble State Park Wildfire (2002) Joseph J. Charney USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, East Lansing, MI Daniel Keyser Department of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, University at Albany, Albany, NY. DTSP wildfire case study.

agustafson
Download Presentation

A case book of the Double Trouble State Park Wildfire (2002) Joseph J. Charney

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A case book of the Double Trouble State Park Wildfire (2002) Joseph J. Charney USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, East Lansing, MI Daniel Keyser Department of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, University at Albany, Albany, NY

  2. DTSP wildfire case study • DTSP wildfire event • Occurred on 2 June 2002 in east-central NJ • An abandoned campfire grew into a major wildfire by 1800 UTC • Burned 1,300 acres • Forced closure of the Garden State Parkway • Damaged or destroyed 36 homes and outbuildings • Directly threatened over 200 homes • Forced evacuation of 500 homes • Caused ~$400,000 in property damage

  3. DTSP wildfire event New Brunswick wind profiler OKX upper air station KWRI surface station Fire location

  4. Table 1. Sequence of events during the Double Trouble State Park wildfire from 1415 UTC to 2148 UTC 2 June 2002 [adapted from NJFFS (2003)]

  5. Fig. 8. Surface meteograms from 0000 UTC to 2300 UTC 2 June 2002 for (a) McGuire Air Force Base, NJ (WRI), and (b) Atlantic City, NJ (ACY). Adapted from the Plymouth State Weather Center web page (TUhttp://vortex.plymouth.edu/statlog-u.htmlUT).

  6. Fig. 3. Surface analyses of potential temperature (contour interval 4°C, solid), mixing ratio (value indicated in g kg−1 at station location; contour interval 5 g kg−1, dashed, shaded as indicated in legend), and wind (full barb 5 m s−1) valid at (a) 1200 UTC 2 June 2002, (b) 1800 UTC 2 June 2002, and (c) 0000 UTC 3 June 2002. Adapted from surface analyses generated and archived in the Department of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, University at Albany, State University of New York.

  7. Fig. 4. NARR upper-air analyses of (a) geopotential height (contour interval 30 m, solid), temperature (°C, color shaded as indicated in legend), and wind (maximum vector 25 m sP−1P) at 1200 UTC 2 June 2002 at 850 hPa, (b) geopotential height (contour interval 120 m, solid), wind speed (m sP−1P, color shaded as indicated in legend), and wind (maximum vector 75 m sP−1P) at 1200 UTC 2 June 2002 at 300 hPa, (c) as in (a) except for 0000 UTC 3 June 2002, and (d) as in (b) except for 0000 UTC 3 June 2002.

  8. Fig. 5. GOES water vapor images valid at (a) 1215 UTC 2 June 2002 and (b) 0015 UTC 3 June 2002.

  9. Fig. 6. Skew T–log p soundings at Upton, NY (OKX), valid at (a) 1200 UTC 2 June 2002 and (b) 0000 UTC 3 June 2002. Adapted from the University of Wyoming weather web page (TUhttp://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.htmlUT).

  10. DTSP wildfire observations Observed skew T–log p sounding at Upton, NY (OKX), valid at 0000 UTC 3 June 2002

  11. DTSP wildfire observations Wind profiler observations at New Brunswick, NJ, from 1100 UTC to 2100 UTC 2 June 2002

  12. MM5 model configuration • MM5 version 5.3 • 4 km nested grid • 35 sigma levels, with 15 levels in the lowest 2000 m • NARR data used for initial and boundary conditions • Modified OSU land-surface model as implemented by Chen and Dudhia (2001) • RRTM radiation scheme • MYJ PBL scheme

  13. Fig. 9. MM5-simulated surface relative humidity (%, color shaded as indicated in legend) and surface wind (full barb 5 m sP−1P) valid at 1800 UTC 2 June 2002. Fig. 10. MM5-simulated relative humidity (%, color shaded as indicated in legend) at 700 hPa valid at 1800 UTC 2 June 2002. The fire icon indicates the fire location and the thick black line shows the orientation of the vertical cross section in Fig. 12.

  14. Fig. 12. Northwest–southeast-oriented vertical cross section of MM5-simulated relative humidity (%, color shaded as indicated in legend) and pressure-coordinate vertical velocity (contour interval 10 dPa s−1, solid, starting at 10 dPa s−1) valid at (a) 1500 UTC 2 June 2002, (b) 1600 UTC 2 June 2002, (c) 1700 UTC 2 June 2002, and (d) 1800 UTC 2 June 2002. The fire location is indicated by the fire icon at 208 km on the abscissa of the cross section. The location of the cross section is indicated by the thick black line in Fig. 10.

  15. Fig. 13. Time series at the fire location valid from 1200 UTC 2 June 2002 to 0000 UTC 3 June 2002 of MM5-simulated (a) surface relative humidity (%), (b) surface wind speed (m sP−1P), and (c) PBL depth (m). The fire location is indicated by the fire icon in Fig. 10.

  16. Fig. 14. Time–height cross section at the fire location valid from 1200 UTC 2 June 2002 to 0000 UTC 3 June 2002 of MM5-simulated (a) relative humidity (%, color shaded as indicated in legend) and (b) wind speed (m sP−1P, color shaded as indicated in legend). The fire location is indicated by the fire icon in Fig. 10.

  17. WRF model configuration • WRF version 3.1 • 4 km nested grid • 50 sigma levels, with 21 levels in the lowest 2000 m • NARR data used for initial and boundary conditions • Noah land-surface model • RRTM radiation scheme • MRF, YSU, MYJ, MYNN PBL schemes

  18. WRF model configuration • PBL schemes • MRF (Hong and Pan 1996): MRF PBL; predecessor to YSU scheme with implicit treatment of entrainment layer. • YSU (Hong et al. 2006):update of MRF scheme; explicit entrainment layer, reduced mixing in high wind regimes, more realistic diurnal PBL growth. • MYJ (Janjić 1990, 1994):TKE-based PBL prediction scheme used in Eta and MM5 models; Mellor–Yamada level 2.5 turbulence closure and local vertical mixing. • MYNN (Nakanishi and Niino 2004): update to the MYJ scheme; deeper mixed layer, better representation of vertical moisture gradients.

  19. WRF model configuration • Surface physics schemes • MRF: MM5 similarity scheme • YSU: MM5 similarity scheme • MYJ: Eta similarity scheme • MYNN: updated version of Eta similarity scheme

  20. WRF model configuration • Surface physics schemes • Simulations with the MYNN PBL scheme were rerun using the surface physics schemes for the MRF, YSU, and MYJ PBL schemes. • Changing the surface physics scheme results in relatively minor differences compared with the differences that arise from changing the PBL scheme.

  21. DTSP wildfire simulations WRF simulations initialized at 1200 UTC 1 June 2002 MRF Simulated skew T–log p sounding at OKX valid at 0000 UTC 3 June 2002

  22. DTSP wildfire simulations YSU Simulated skew T–log p sounding at OKX valid at 0000 UTC 3 June 2002

  23. DTSP wildfire simulations MYJ Simulated skew T–log p sounding at OKX valid at 0000 UTC 3 June 2002

  24. DTSP wildfire simulations MYNN Simulated skew T–log p sounding at OKX valid at 0000 UTC 3 June 2002

  25. DTSP wildfire simulations MRF Simulated skew T–log p sounding at the fire location valid at 1800 UTC 2 June 2002

  26. DTSP wildfire simulations YSU Simulated skew T–log p sounding at the fire location valid at 1800 UTC 2 June 2002

  27. DTSP wildfire simulations MYJ Simulated skew T–log p sounding at the fire location valid at 1800 UTC 2 June 2002

  28. DTSP wildfire simulations MYNN Simulated skew T–log p sounding at the fire location valid at 1800 UTC 2 June 2002

  29. DTSP wildfire simulations Time series at fire location valid from 1200 UTC to 2100 UTC 2 June 2002 of simulated surface temperature

  30. DTSP wildfire simulations Time series at fire location valid from 1200 UTC to 2100 UTC 2 June 2002 of simulated surface mixing ratio

  31. DTSP wildfire simulations Time series at fire location valid from 1200 UTC to 2100 UTC 2 June 2002 of simulated surface wind speed

  32. DTSP wildfire simulations Vertical profiles at fire location valid from 1200 UTC to 2100 UTC 2 June 2002 of simulated temperature

  33. DTSP wildfire simulations Vertical profiles at fire location valid from 1200 UTC to 2100 UTC 2 June 2002 of simulated temperature

  34. DTSP wildfire simulations Vertical profiles at fire location valid from 1200 UTC to 2100 UTC 2 June 2002 of simulated temperature

  35. DTSP wildfire simulations Vertical profiles at fire location valid from 1200 UTC to 2100 UTC 2 June 2002 of simulated temperature

  36. DTSP wildfire simulations Vertical profiles at fire location valid from 1200 UTC to 2100 UTC 2 June 2002 of simulated mixing ratio

  37. DTSP wildfire simulations Vertical profiles at fire location valid from 1200 UTC to 2100 UTC 2 June 2002 of simulated mixing ratio

  38. DTSP wildfire simulations Vertical profiles at fire location valid from 1200 UTC to 2100 UTC 2 June 2002 of simulated mixing ratio

  39. DTSP wildfire simulations Vertical profiles at fire location valid from 1200 UTC to 2100 UTC 2 June 2002 of simulated mixing ratio

  40. DTSP wildfire simulations Vertical profiles at fire location valid from 1200 UTC to 2100 UTC 2 June 2002 of simulated wind speed

  41. DTSP wildfire simulations Vertical profiles at fire location valid from 1200 UTC to 2100 UTC 2 June 2002 of simulated wind speed

  42. DTSP wildfire simulations Vertical profiles at fire location valid from 1200 UTC to 2100 UTC 2 June 2002 of simulated wind speed

  43. DTSP wildfire simulations Vertical profiles at fire location valid from 1200 UTC to 2100 UTC 2 June 2002 of simulated wind speed

  44. Summary • An intercomparison of the MRF, YSU, MYJ, and MYNN PBL schemes in WRF version 3.1 for the DTSP wildfire event indicates that the behavior of these schemes is consistent with that documented in the literature. • The MRF and YSU schemes produce less directional wind shear than the MYJ and MYNN schemes. • The diurnal growth of the mixed layer is more gradual in the YSU, MYJ, and MYNN schemes than in the MRF scheme. • The YSU and MYNN PBL schemes exhibit a deeper mixed layer than the MYJ scheme.

  45. Future work • The methodology developed for the DTSP wildfire event will be extended to additional events. • Candidates include the Warren Grove (NJ, 2007), Evans Road (NC, 2008), and Cottonville (WI, 2005) wildfires. • Aspects to be examined for these events: 1) effects of the entrainment formulation on mixed-layer growth 2) sensitivity of mixing ratio profiles in the mixed layer to the choice of PBL scheme 3) performance of the PBL schemes in high-wind regimes

More Related