SENSIBILITY OF THE PLANETARY BOUNDARY LAYER PARAMETERIZATIONS BY WRF SINGLE-COLUMN MODEL IN THE ALCANTARA LAUNCH CENTER
Keywords:Planetary boundary layer (PBL). WRF model. PBL parameterization.
This study evaluates the planetary boundary layer (PBL) by the sensitivity of different PBL parameterizations for the Alcântara Rocket Launch Center (CLA). The study was produced using two distinct databases, an observational and other numeric. The observational data in surface and radiosondes were of the CHUVA Project for the Alcantara campaign and applied in comparison with the WRF-SCM integrations. These integrations were obtained using five PBL parameterizations (YSU, MYJ, QNSE, MYNN2 and TEMF) in the WRF model (3.7.1) in its version of Single-Column Model (SCM), with initial condition of NCEP’s global model final analysis (FNL/GFS) for 18Z on March 5, 2010, integrating for 30 hours simulations considering spin-up (6 + 24 hours). The overall results do not highlight a standardization of quality of some parameter, despite the MYNN, QNSE and YSU schemes have been closer to the observations at different situations. The PBL height determination was better simulated with YSU and QNSE schemes, and with MYJ to air temperature at 2m. Importantly, the dynamic limitations that an SCM model has also adding the complexity of the Alcântara site and its coastal features of meso and large scale (eg breezes and ITCZ). These problems motivates the future studies, for example, with three-dimensional microscale models such as LES.
ANGEVINE, W. M., JIANG, H., MAURITSEN, T. (2010). Performance of an Eddy Diffusivity–Mass Flux Scheme for Shallow Cumulus Boundary Layers. Monthly Weather Review, 138(7), 2895–2912.
BAKLANOV, A. A. et al. The Nature, Theory, and Modeling of Atmospheric Planetary Boundary Layers. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 92, n. 2, p. 123–128, fev. 2011.
BOSVELD, F. C. et al. The Third GABLS Intercomparison Case for Evaluation Studies of Boundary-Layer Models. Part B: Results and Process Understanding. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 13 mar. 2014.
FISCH, G. Características do perfil vertical do vento no Centro de Lançamento de Foguetes de Alcântara (CLA). Revista Brasileira de Meteorologia, v. 14, n. 1, p. 11–21, 1999.
HOLTSLAG, A. A. M. et al. Stable Atmospheric Boundary Layers and Diurnal Cycles - Challenges for Weather and Climate Models. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 94, p. 1691–1706, 2013.
HOLTSLAG, A. A. M. Introduction to the Third GEWEX Atmospheric Boundary Layer Study (GABLS3). Boundary-Layer Meteorology, v. 152, n. 2, p. 127–132, 30 maio 2014.
HOLTSLAG, A. A. M.; STEENEVELD, G.-J. Single Column Modeling of Atmospheric Boundary Layers and the Complex Interactions with the Land Surface. In: MEYERS, R. A. (Ed.). . Extreme Environmental Events. New York, NY: Springer New York, 2011. p. 844–857.
KRISHNAMURTI, T. N.; STEFANOVA, L.; MISRA, V. Tropical Meteorology: An Introduction. [s.l.] Springer, 2013.
LIU, S.; LIANG, X.-Z. Observed Diurnal Cycle Climatology of Planetary Boundary Layer Height. Journal of Climate, v. 23, n. 21, p. 5790–5809, nov. 2010.
MACHADO, L. A. T. et al. The Chuva Project - How does convection vary across Brazil? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 95, n. 9, p. 1365–1380, set. 2014.
PIRES, L. B. M. et al. A Study of the Internal Boundary Layer Generated at the Alcantara Space Center. American Journal of Environmental Engineering, v. 5, n. 1A, p. 52–64, 2015.
SKAMAROCK, W. C. et al. Weather Research & Forecasting - ARW Version 3 Modeling System User’s Guide. Boulder, Colorado (EUA): [s.n.].
STENSRUD, D. J. Parameterization Schemes: Keys to Understanding Numerical Weather Prediction Models. [s.l.] Cambridge University Press, 2007.
STOLL, R.; PORTÉ-AGEL, F. Surface Heterogeneity Effects on Regional-Scale Fluxes in Stable Boundary Layers: Surface Temperature Transitions. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, v. 66, n. 2, p. 412–431, 24 fev. 2009.
STULL, R. B. An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology. Springer, 1988.
WARNER, T. T. Numerical Weather and Climate Prediction. Cambridge University Press, 2011.
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.