Comparison of Observed, MM5 and WRF-NMM Model-Simulated, and HPAC-Assumed Boundary-Layer Meteorological Variables for 3Days During the IHOP Field Experiment

The objective of the study is to evaluate operational mesoscale meteorological model atmospheric boundary-layer (ABL) outputs for use in the Hazard Prediction Assessment Capability (HPAC)/Second-Order Closure Integrated Puff (SCIPUFF) transport and dispersion model. HPAC uses the meteorological mode...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Boundary-layer meteorology 2010-02, Vol.134 (2), p.285-306
Hauptverfasser: Hanna, Steven R, Reen, Brian, Hendrick, Elizabeth, Santos, Lynne, Stauffer, David, Deng, Aijun, McQueen, Jeffrey, Tsidulko, Marina, Janjic, Zavisa, Jovic, Dusan, Sykes, RIan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 306
container_issue 2
container_start_page 285
container_title Boundary-layer meteorology
container_volume 134
creator Hanna, Steven R
Reen, Brian
Hendrick, Elizabeth
Santos, Lynne
Stauffer, David
Deng, Aijun
McQueen, Jeffrey
Tsidulko, Marina
Janjic, Zavisa
Jovic, Dusan
Sykes, RIan
description The objective of the study is to evaluate operational mesoscale meteorological model atmospheric boundary-layer (ABL) outputs for use in the Hazard Prediction Assessment Capability (HPAC)/Second-Order Closure Integrated Puff (SCIPUFF) transport and dispersion model. HPAC uses the meteorological models' routine simulations of surface buoyancy flux, winds, and mixing depth to derive the profiles of ABL turbulence. The Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Model (MM5) and the Weather Research and Forecast-Nonhydrostatic Mesoscale Model (WRF-NMM) ABL outputs and the HPAC ABL parameterisations are compared with observations during the International H2O Project (IHOP). The meteorological models' configurations are not specially designed research versions for this study but rather are intended to be representative of what may be used operationally and thus have relatively coarse lowest vertical layer thicknesses of 59 and 36m, respectively. The meteorological models' simulations of mixing depth are in good agreement (c20%) with observations on most afternoons. Wind speed errors of 1 or 2ms super(-1) are found, typical of those found in other studies, with larger errors occurring when the simulated centre of a low-pressure system is misplaced in time or space. The hourly variation of turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) is well-simulated during the daytime, although there is a meteorological model underprediction bias of about 20-40%. At night, WRF-NMM shows fair agreement with observations, and MM5 sometimes produces a very small default TKE value because of the stable boundary-layer parameterisation that is used. The HPAC TKE parameterisation is usually a factor of 5-10 high at night, primarily due to the fact that the meteorological model wind-speed output is at a height of 30m for MM5 and 18m for WRF-NMM, which is often well above the stable mixing depth. It is concluded that, before meteorological model TKE fields can be confidently used by HPAC, it would help to improve vertical resolution near the surface, say to 10m or less, and it would be good to improve the ABL parameterisations for shallow stable conditions.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10546-009-9446-7
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_745696384</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1770306393</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p974-7d9f6a1031ff3109494f99d1db2156e52e6c101b29eb5ae6706ce39a9e1b82683</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNjUtOwzAYhC0EEuVxAHbewQKDHb_iZSmUIjW0ggqWyKn_QJATFztB9C4cliJYI1Yzo_k0g9ARo2eMUn2eGJVCEUoNMWJj9BYaMKk5YUJn22hAKVUk50zsor2UXjdRM0kH6HMUmpWNdQotDhWelQniO7hTXBQS29bhx7sxuS0KXAQHntzXTe9t9w18l5P5cESGKfUNOHwR-tbZuCZTu4aIC-ggxODDc720Hj9sTmzpIeEqRMwv7Trhyz7W7TPuXgDfTGZzPK7BO3z1sYJYN9B2B2insj7B4a_uo8X4ajGakOns-mY0nJKV0YJoZyplGeWsqjijRhhRGeOYKzMmFcgM1JJRVmYGSmlBaaqWwI01wMo8UznfR8c_s6sY3npI3VNTpyV4b1sIfXrSQiqjeC7-QXKZy0xmG_LkT5JpTTlV3HD-Barthp4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1770306393</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Observed, MM5 and WRF-NMM Model-Simulated, and HPAC-Assumed Boundary-Layer Meteorological Variables for 3Days During the IHOP Field Experiment</title><source>SpringerLink_现刊</source><creator>Hanna, Steven R ; Reen, Brian ; Hendrick, Elizabeth ; Santos, Lynne ; Stauffer, David ; Deng, Aijun ; McQueen, Jeffrey ; Tsidulko, Marina ; Janjic, Zavisa ; Jovic, Dusan ; Sykes, RIan</creator><creatorcontrib>Hanna, Steven R ; Reen, Brian ; Hendrick, Elizabeth ; Santos, Lynne ; Stauffer, David ; Deng, Aijun ; McQueen, Jeffrey ; Tsidulko, Marina ; Janjic, Zavisa ; Jovic, Dusan ; Sykes, RIan</creatorcontrib><description>The objective of the study is to evaluate operational mesoscale meteorological model atmospheric boundary-layer (ABL) outputs for use in the Hazard Prediction Assessment Capability (HPAC)/Second-Order Closure Integrated Puff (SCIPUFF) transport and dispersion model. HPAC uses the meteorological models' routine simulations of surface buoyancy flux, winds, and mixing depth to derive the profiles of ABL turbulence. The Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Model (MM5) and the Weather Research and Forecast-Nonhydrostatic Mesoscale Model (WRF-NMM) ABL outputs and the HPAC ABL parameterisations are compared with observations during the International H2O Project (IHOP). The meteorological models' configurations are not specially designed research versions for this study but rather are intended to be representative of what may be used operationally and thus have relatively coarse lowest vertical layer thicknesses of 59 and 36m, respectively. The meteorological models' simulations of mixing depth are in good agreement (c20%) with observations on most afternoons. Wind speed errors of 1 or 2ms super(-1) are found, typical of those found in other studies, with larger errors occurring when the simulated centre of a low-pressure system is misplaced in time or space. The hourly variation of turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) is well-simulated during the daytime, although there is a meteorological model underprediction bias of about 20-40%. At night, WRF-NMM shows fair agreement with observations, and MM5 sometimes produces a very small default TKE value because of the stable boundary-layer parameterisation that is used. The HPAC TKE parameterisation is usually a factor of 5-10 high at night, primarily due to the fact that the meteorological model wind-speed output is at a height of 30m for MM5 and 18m for WRF-NMM, which is often well above the stable mixing depth. It is concluded that, before meteorological model TKE fields can be confidently used by HPAC, it would help to improve vertical resolution near the surface, say to 10m or less, and it would be good to improve the ABL parameterisations for shallow stable conditions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0006-8314</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-1472</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10546-009-9446-7</identifier><language>eng</language><subject>Atmospherics ; Boundaries ; Computational fluid dynamics ; Computer simulation ; Error analysis ; Mathematical models ; Night ; Turbulence</subject><ispartof>Boundary-layer meteorology, 2010-02, Vol.134 (2), p.285-306</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hanna, Steven R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reen, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hendrick, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santos, Lynne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stauffer, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deng, Aijun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McQueen, Jeffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsidulko, Marina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janjic, Zavisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jovic, Dusan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sykes, RIan</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Observed, MM5 and WRF-NMM Model-Simulated, and HPAC-Assumed Boundary-Layer Meteorological Variables for 3Days During the IHOP Field Experiment</title><title>Boundary-layer meteorology</title><description>The objective of the study is to evaluate operational mesoscale meteorological model atmospheric boundary-layer (ABL) outputs for use in the Hazard Prediction Assessment Capability (HPAC)/Second-Order Closure Integrated Puff (SCIPUFF) transport and dispersion model. HPAC uses the meteorological models' routine simulations of surface buoyancy flux, winds, and mixing depth to derive the profiles of ABL turbulence. The Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Model (MM5) and the Weather Research and Forecast-Nonhydrostatic Mesoscale Model (WRF-NMM) ABL outputs and the HPAC ABL parameterisations are compared with observations during the International H2O Project (IHOP). The meteorological models' configurations are not specially designed research versions for this study but rather are intended to be representative of what may be used operationally and thus have relatively coarse lowest vertical layer thicknesses of 59 and 36m, respectively. The meteorological models' simulations of mixing depth are in good agreement (c20%) with observations on most afternoons. Wind speed errors of 1 or 2ms super(-1) are found, typical of those found in other studies, with larger errors occurring when the simulated centre of a low-pressure system is misplaced in time or space. The hourly variation of turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) is well-simulated during the daytime, although there is a meteorological model underprediction bias of about 20-40%. At night, WRF-NMM shows fair agreement with observations, and MM5 sometimes produces a very small default TKE value because of the stable boundary-layer parameterisation that is used. The HPAC TKE parameterisation is usually a factor of 5-10 high at night, primarily due to the fact that the meteorological model wind-speed output is at a height of 30m for MM5 and 18m for WRF-NMM, which is often well above the stable mixing depth. It is concluded that, before meteorological model TKE fields can be confidently used by HPAC, it would help to improve vertical resolution near the surface, say to 10m or less, and it would be good to improve the ABL parameterisations for shallow stable conditions.</description><subject>Atmospherics</subject><subject>Boundaries</subject><subject>Computational fluid dynamics</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Error analysis</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Night</subject><subject>Turbulence</subject><issn>0006-8314</issn><issn>1573-1472</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNjUtOwzAYhC0EEuVxAHbewQKDHb_iZSmUIjW0ggqWyKn_QJATFztB9C4cliJYI1Yzo_k0g9ARo2eMUn2eGJVCEUoNMWJj9BYaMKk5YUJn22hAKVUk50zsor2UXjdRM0kH6HMUmpWNdQotDhWelQniO7hTXBQS29bhx7sxuS0KXAQHntzXTe9t9w18l5P5cESGKfUNOHwR-tbZuCZTu4aIC-ggxODDc720Hj9sTmzpIeEqRMwv7Trhyz7W7TPuXgDfTGZzPK7BO3z1sYJYN9B2B2insj7B4a_uo8X4ajGakOns-mY0nJKV0YJoZyplGeWsqjijRhhRGeOYKzMmFcgM1JJRVmYGSmlBaaqWwI01wMo8UznfR8c_s6sY3npI3VNTpyV4b1sIfXrSQiqjeC7-QXKZy0xmG_LkT5JpTTlV3HD-Barthp4</recordid><startdate>20100201</startdate><enddate>20100201</enddate><creator>Hanna, Steven R</creator><creator>Reen, Brian</creator><creator>Hendrick, Elizabeth</creator><creator>Santos, Lynne</creator><creator>Stauffer, David</creator><creator>Deng, Aijun</creator><creator>McQueen, Jeffrey</creator><creator>Tsidulko, Marina</creator><creator>Janjic, Zavisa</creator><creator>Jovic, Dusan</creator><creator>Sykes, RIan</creator><scope>8FD</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100201</creationdate><title>Comparison of Observed, MM5 and WRF-NMM Model-Simulated, and HPAC-Assumed Boundary-Layer Meteorological Variables for 3Days During the IHOP Field Experiment</title><author>Hanna, Steven R ; Reen, Brian ; Hendrick, Elizabeth ; Santos, Lynne ; Stauffer, David ; Deng, Aijun ; McQueen, Jeffrey ; Tsidulko, Marina ; Janjic, Zavisa ; Jovic, Dusan ; Sykes, RIan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p974-7d9f6a1031ff3109494f99d1db2156e52e6c101b29eb5ae6706ce39a9e1b82683</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Atmospherics</topic><topic>Boundaries</topic><topic>Computational fluid dynamics</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Error analysis</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Night</topic><topic>Turbulence</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hanna, Steven R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reen, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hendrick, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santos, Lynne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stauffer, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deng, Aijun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McQueen, Jeffrey</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsidulko, Marina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Janjic, Zavisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jovic, Dusan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sykes, RIan</creatorcontrib><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Boundary-layer meteorology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hanna, Steven R</au><au>Reen, Brian</au><au>Hendrick, Elizabeth</au><au>Santos, Lynne</au><au>Stauffer, David</au><au>Deng, Aijun</au><au>McQueen, Jeffrey</au><au>Tsidulko, Marina</au><au>Janjic, Zavisa</au><au>Jovic, Dusan</au><au>Sykes, RIan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Observed, MM5 and WRF-NMM Model-Simulated, and HPAC-Assumed Boundary-Layer Meteorological Variables for 3Days During the IHOP Field Experiment</atitle><jtitle>Boundary-layer meteorology</jtitle><date>2010-02-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>134</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>285</spage><epage>306</epage><pages>285-306</pages><issn>0006-8314</issn><eissn>1573-1472</eissn><abstract>The objective of the study is to evaluate operational mesoscale meteorological model atmospheric boundary-layer (ABL) outputs for use in the Hazard Prediction Assessment Capability (HPAC)/Second-Order Closure Integrated Puff (SCIPUFF) transport and dispersion model. HPAC uses the meteorological models' routine simulations of surface buoyancy flux, winds, and mixing depth to derive the profiles of ABL turbulence. The Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Model (MM5) and the Weather Research and Forecast-Nonhydrostatic Mesoscale Model (WRF-NMM) ABL outputs and the HPAC ABL parameterisations are compared with observations during the International H2O Project (IHOP). The meteorological models' configurations are not specially designed research versions for this study but rather are intended to be representative of what may be used operationally and thus have relatively coarse lowest vertical layer thicknesses of 59 and 36m, respectively. The meteorological models' simulations of mixing depth are in good agreement (c20%) with observations on most afternoons. Wind speed errors of 1 or 2ms super(-1) are found, typical of those found in other studies, with larger errors occurring when the simulated centre of a low-pressure system is misplaced in time or space. The hourly variation of turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) is well-simulated during the daytime, although there is a meteorological model underprediction bias of about 20-40%. At night, WRF-NMM shows fair agreement with observations, and MM5 sometimes produces a very small default TKE value because of the stable boundary-layer parameterisation that is used. The HPAC TKE parameterisation is usually a factor of 5-10 high at night, primarily due to the fact that the meteorological model wind-speed output is at a height of 30m for MM5 and 18m for WRF-NMM, which is often well above the stable mixing depth. It is concluded that, before meteorological model TKE fields can be confidently used by HPAC, it would help to improve vertical resolution near the surface, say to 10m or less, and it would be good to improve the ABL parameterisations for shallow stable conditions.</abstract><doi>10.1007/s10546-009-9446-7</doi><tpages>22</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0006-8314
ispartof Boundary-layer meteorology, 2010-02, Vol.134 (2), p.285-306
issn 0006-8314
1573-1472
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_745696384
source SpringerLink_现刊
subjects Atmospherics
Boundaries
Computational fluid dynamics
Computer simulation
Error analysis
Mathematical models
Night
Turbulence
title Comparison of Observed, MM5 and WRF-NMM Model-Simulated, and HPAC-Assumed Boundary-Layer Meteorological Variables for 3Days During the IHOP Field Experiment
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T14%3A31%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Observed,%20MM5%20and%20WRF-NMM%20Model-Simulated,%20and%20HPAC-Assumed%20Boundary-Layer%20Meteorological%20Variables%20for%203Days%20During%20the%20IHOP%20Field%20Experiment&rft.jtitle=Boundary-layer%20meteorology&rft.au=Hanna,%20Steven%20R&rft.date=2010-02-01&rft.volume=134&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=285&rft.epage=306&rft.pages=285-306&rft.issn=0006-8314&rft.eissn=1573-1472&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10546-009-9446-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E1770306393%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1770306393&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true