1 / 16

Evaluation of regional climate simulations with WRF model in conditions of central Europe

This study evaluates regional climate simulations in Central Europe using the WRF model, comparing different parameterizations and versions to assess accuracy in temperature and rainfall predictions. The results highlight the optimal combination of radiation and convection schemes.

tannerj
Download Presentation

Evaluation of regional climate simulations with WRF model in conditions of central Europe

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. Evaluation of regional climate simulations with WRF model in conditionsof central Europe Jan Karlický,Tomáš Halenka,Michal Belda, (Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic)

  2. Contents • Sensitivity test of radiation and convection model parameterization • Evaluation of model simulations at mother domain, at sub-domain with one-way nesting procedure and at sub-domain without nesting • Comparison of hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic WRF version at the sub-domain with nesting procedure

  3. Contents • Sensitivity test of radiation and convection model parameterization • Evaluation of model simulations at mother domain, at sub-domain with one-way nesting procedure and at sub-domain without nesting • Comparison of hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic WRF version at the sub-domain with nesting procedure

  4. WRF (v. 3.3) model configuration • Domain: 25 km resolution, center point 50°N,13°E, 190 x 206 gridpoints • Input data: ERA-40, 0.5° resolution • Validation: E-OBS reference data, 0.25° resolution • Model setting: ptop = 5000 Pa, 28 vertical levels, time step 200 s, recommended WRF setting for RCM: PBL – YSU scheme, Noah Land Surface Model, surface layer – MM5 scheme, microphysics – WRF single moment 6 class • Tested schemes of radiation transfer: RRTM (LW), Goddard (SW), CAM (LW+SW, recommended) • Tested schemes of convection: Kain-Fritsch (recommended), Grell-Devenyi, Tiedtke

  5. Parameterization test, full-area averages for years 1991–2000 (WRF – E-OBS 5.0) • Chosen combination – RRTM+Goddard (rad.) +Tiedtke (con.)

  6. Contents • Sensitivity test of radiation and convection model parameterization • Evaluation of model simulations at mother domain, at sub-domain with one-way nesting procedure and at sub-domain without nesting • Comparison of hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic WRF version at the sub-domain with nesting procedure

  7. Nested domain configuration • Domain: 6.25 km resolution, 181 x 121 grid points (white rectangle ) • Driving data: 25 km WRF simulation (nesting procedure), ERA-40 (without nesting) • Time interval 1961–1970, 1960 spin-up • Parameterization: RRTM+Goddard (radiation), Tiedtke (convection)

  8. Comparison of simulations on sub-domainTemp., rainfall (sub-domain area averages)

  9. Comparison of simulations on sub-domainTemp., rainfall (spatial distribution) 6.25 km nested simulation 6.25 km direct simulation T2 MEAN T2 MEAN MAM DJF DJF MAM JJA SON JJA SON RAINFALL RAINFALL DJF MAM DJF MAM JJA SON JJA SON

  10. Contents • Sensitivity test of radiation and convection model parameterization • Evaluation of model simulations at mother domain, at sub-domain with one-way nesting procedure and at subdomain without nesting • Comparison of hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic WRF version at the sub-domain with nesting procedure

  11. Comparison of hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic WRF Temp., rainfall (sub-domain area averages)

  12. Comparison of hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic WRF T2 mean, rainfall (spatial distribution) hydrostatic version non-hydrostatic version T2 MEAN T2 MEAN MAM DJF DJF MAM JJA SON JJA SON RAINFALL RAINFALL DJF MAM DJF MAM JJA SON JJA SON

  13. Downward SW radiation – model outputs vs. GEBA station data

  14. Temporal distribution of precipitation hydrostatic version Number of days > 0.1 mm non-hydrostatic version DJF MAM DJF MAM JJA SON JJA SON Number of days> 10 mm DJF MAM DJF MAM JJA SON JJA SON

  15. Conclusions • Combination of schemes RRTM (LW radiation), Goddard (SW radiation)and Tiedtke (convection) makes the best results • Simulation on sub-domain performed directly from ERA-40 makes less temperature bias, precipitation impacted by prevailing flow • Non-hydrostatic version makes a little bit better results than hydrostatic on 6.25 km, but the difference is much less than general biases

  16. Acknowledges • NCAR/UCAR – WRF ARW model • ECMWF – ERA-40 data – model boundary conditions • ECA&D – E-OBS reference data • ETH Zurich – GEBA (Global Energy Balance Archive) – radiation station data • GAUK (Grant Agency of Charles University) – financial support

More Related