1 / 36

The impact of mesoscale PBL parameterizations

The impact of mesoscale PBL parameterizations on the evolution of mixed-layer processes important for fire weather Joseph J. Charney USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, East Lansing, MI Daniel Keyser

mikaia
Download Presentation

The impact of mesoscale PBL parameterizations

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. The impact of mesoscale PBL parameterizations on the evolution of mixed-layer processes important for fire weather 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. Organization • Background • WRF model configuration • Double Trouble State Park (DTSP) wildfire case study • Summary and future work

  3. Background • Mesoscale models are important tools for fire-weather forecasting and research applications. • The surface-based mixed layer can profoundly influence fire–atmosphere interactions. • Mixed-layer profiles of temperature, moisture, and wind strongly affect the evolution of a wildland fire. • Mixed-layer processes are incorporated into mesoscale models through the planetary boundary layer (PBL) parameterization scheme.

  4. WRF model configuration • WRF version 3.1 • 4 km nested grid • 51 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. 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

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

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

  11. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  35. 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.

  36. 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