VALIDATION OF PALM LES MODEL BY USING RADIOSOUNDING AND AIRCRAFT DATA FROM GOAMAZON FIELD CAMPAIGNS
Keywords:Surface heterogeneity. Convective boundary layer. Airborne measurements, PALM LES model, GoAmazon.
In the present study, the evolution of the convective boundary layer over heterogeneous surface simulated by PALM LES is validated with radiosounding and airborne data from GoAmazon field campaigns, held in Amazon Rainforest during the 2014 wet and dry seasons. It is shown that, in general case, the growth of the convective boundary layer simulated by PALM compares well with observational data. However, during the morning time, the convective boundary layer depth is underestimated, whereas it showed acceptable response to the decreasing of the surface forcings along the late afternoon.
Aubinet, M., Vesala, T., Papale, D. (2012). Eddy-covariance: A practical guide to measurement and data analysis. Springer, 270pp.
Howell, J. F., Mahrt, L. (1997). Multiresolution flux decomposition. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 83: 117-137.
LeMone, M. A., Pennell, W. T. (1980). A comparison of turbulence measurements from aircraft. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 19: 1420-1437.
Lenschow, D. (1970). Airplane measurements of Planetary Boundary-Layer structure. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 9: 874-884.
Lenschow, D. H., Mann, J., Kristensen, L. (1994). How long is long enough when measuring fluxes and other turbulence statistics? Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 11: 661-673.
Mahrt, L. (1997). Flux sampling errors for aircraft and towers. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 15: 416-429.
Mallat, S. G. (1989). A theory of multiresolution signal decomposition: The wavelet representation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 11: 674-693.
Maronga, B., Raasch, S. (2012). Large-eddy simulations of surface heterogeneity effects on the Convective Boundary Layer during the LITFASS-2003 Experiment. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, DOI: 10.1007/s10546-012-9748-z.
Nason, G. (2013). A test for second-order stationarity and approximate confidence intervals for localized autovariances for locally stationary timeseries. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B – Statistical Methodology, 75(5): 879-904.
Raasch, S., Schröter, M. (2001). PALM – A large-eddy simulation model performing on massively parallel computers. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 10 (5): 363-372.
Schmid, B., Tomlinson, J. M., Hubbe, J. M., Comstock, J. M., Mei, F., Chand, D., Pekour, M. S., Kluzek, C. D., Andrews, E., Biraud, S. C., McFarquhar, G. M. (2014). The DOE ARM aerial facility. Bulletin of American Meteorological Society, 95(5): 723-742, DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00040.1.
Vickers, D., Mahrt, L. (1997). Quality control and flux sampling problems for tower and aircraft data. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 14: 512-526.
Vickers, D., Mahrt, L. (2003). The cospectral gap and turbulent flux calculations. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 20: 660-672.
How to Cite
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.