1 / 32

Seasonal Modeling (NOAA)

This study highlights the achievements in seasonal modeling and the evaluation of the NOAA model through data preparation, simulations, and comparisons with observations. It also provides recommendations for improving the model's performance.

dangd
Download Presentation

Seasonal Modeling (NOAA)

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. Seasonal Modeling (NOAA) Jian-Wen Bao Sara Michelson Jim Wilczak Curtis Fleming Emily Piencziak

  2. Accomplishments • Preparation of gridded data sets for the entire summer of 2000 to initialize MM5 • Refinement of the FDAA data preparation: • Elevation of each sigma level varies with observation sites. • Observations are interpolated from two adjacent data levels to a given model level. • An anisotropic spatial influence function is being implemented and tested. • Observational data preparation for model evaluation: • Hand editted (level 1C) winds and RASS from 25 wind profilers for 60 days (3 August – 2 October, 2000) • Data from 1 June – 2 August remain to be editted • PBL depths for entire period, all profilers, have been calculated

  3. PBL Depth Estimation

  4. 36km grid 95x91 12km grid 91x91 4km grid 190x190 All have 50 layers, with 22 in lowest 1km Subregions for Model Evaluation Wind profiler sites

  5. A Major Issue to Settle What is the best model configuration for the seasonal simulations? • Through: • Evaluation of chemical model simulations • Evaluation of major transport processes • Comparison of the simulations using V6 and V7 • Comparison of WRF and MM5

  6. Chemical Model Evaluation • MM5 runs of two 5 day periods ( Jul 24- Jul 29 and Aug 3- Aug 8 2000) were completed. • Analysis and comparison of the above two runs with observations have been started.

  7. Comparison of the Simulated and Observed Surface Winds for the Jul-Aug Case

  8. ABL Height Comparisons (Colored contours are TKE, and dots indicate the observed ABL height)

  9. Observed clouds vs Model Simulation

  10. Solar Radiation Fluxes from Various Versions of Models for the Jul-Aug Case

  11. Domain and Physics Configurations of MM5 and WRF • Physics Configuration in MM5: • the MYJ ABL and surface layer schemes • the NOAH land surface model (LSM) • the Dudhia short-wave, RRTM long-wave radiation • schemes • the Reisner microphysics parameterization • the Grell convective scheme (only on the 36 and 12 • km grids) • Physics Configuration in WRF: • the MYJ ABL and surface layer schemes • the NOAH land surface model (LSM) • the Dudhia short-wave, RRTM long-wave radiation • schemes • the Lin et al. microphysics parameterization • the Kain-Fritsch convective scheme (only on the 36 • km and 12 km grids) NCEP’s ETA 40-km isobaric analysis is used to initialize both WRF and MM5 at 1200 UTC 29 July 2000.

  12. Differences of MM5 and WRF 36 km Topography 36 km Topography 4 km Landuse 4 km Landuse 4 km Topography 4 km Topography WRF MM5 4 km Veg-Frac 4 km Veg-Frac WRF MM5

  13. Differences in the LSM Initialization Temperature at Soil Layer 1 WRF MM5

  14. Differences in the LSM Initialization Temperature at Soil Layer 2 WRF MM5

  15. Differences in the LSM Initialization Temperature at Soil Layer 3 WRF MM5

  16. Differences in the LSM Initialization Temperature at Soil Layer 4 WRF MM5

  17. Differences in the LSM Initialization Moisture at Soil Layer 1 WRF MM5

  18. Differences in the LSM Initialization Moisture at Soil Layer 2 WRF MM5

  19. Differences in the LSM Initialization Moisture at Soil Layer 3 WRF MM5

  20. Differences in the LSM Initialization Moisture at Soil Layer 4 WRF MM5

  21. Comparison of the simulated and observed areal averaged 2m temperatures and 10m winds

  22. Comparison of the simulated and observed areal averaged 2m temperatures and 10m winds

  23. Comparison of the simulated and observed areal averaged 2m temperatures and 10m winds

  24. Comparison of the simulated and observed areal averaged 2m temperatures and 10m winds

  25. comparison of simulated forward trajectories WRF WRF-mm5ics MM5 from 1200 UTC 29 July to 1200 UTC 2 August from 1200 UTC 29 July to 1200 UTC 2 August from 1200 UTC 29 July to 1200 UTC 2 August from 0000 UTC 30 July to 1200 UTC 2 August from 0000 UTC 30 July to 1200 UTC 2 August from 0000 UTC 30 July to 1200 UTC 2 August from 1200 UTC 30 July to 1200 UTC 2 August from 1200 UTC 30 July to 1200 UTC 2 August from 1200 UTC 30 July to 1200 UTC 2 August

  26. Conclusions • Using MM5V3-6 for the seasonal modeling • Undesirable noise in the FDDA run • Uncertainties in the LSM • Some differences in the simulated and observed clouds on cloudy days • Averaging meteorological input in time • Optimizing “tunable” parameters through sensitivity experiments • Improving cloud physics and cloud-radiation interaction Recommendations

  27. ETL CCOS Web Sitewww.etl.noaa.gov/programs/modeling/CCOS/data

More Related