WRF MODEL ERRORS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TURBULENCE PARAMETERIZATIONS IN WEAKLY STABLE NIGHTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X20236Keywords:
Nocturnal temperatures. Turbulence parameterization. Weakly stable regime. WRF model. Grid spacing.Abstract
The quality of nocturnal temperatures forecast by different parameterizations of the atmospheric boundary layer is evaluated. To do that, the WRF model is used. Three different turbulence representation have been considered: Bougeault-Lacarrère (BOULAC), Mellor-Yamada-Janjic (MYJ) and Yonsei University (YSU). For YSU and BOULAC the forecast have been evaluated with a grid spacing of 12 km and for MYJ a grid spacing with 12 km and one with 4 km, centered on state of Rio Grande do Sul, in south Brazil. The more turbulent nights have been used, the less stables, to investigate what is the problems associated to the forecast error in this environment. The Richardson number parameter was the responsible by class the nights according to its stability. The errors are compared with the quality of wind speed forecast and stability parameters. The comparison shows which the model consistently underestimate nocturnal temperatures in these nights and the resolution upgrade did not work in a significative forecast improvement. Furthermore, the windy speed error in the situations with less stability is small. That indicates a existence of a problem associated with the turbulence solution by the atmospheric boundary layer schemes in this type of environment.
Downloads
References
Battisti, A. (2014). Parametrização de Turbulência na Previsibilidade de Temperaturas Mínimas em um Modelo de Mesoescala. Mestrado em meteorologia,
Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria.
Costa, F. D., Acevedo, O. C., Mombach, J. C. M., Degrazia, G. A. (2011). A simplified model for intermittent turbulence in the nocturnal boundary layer. Journal
of the Atmospheric Sciences, 68(8), 1714–1729.
Mahrt, L. (2009). Characteristics of submeso winds in the stable boundary layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 130(1), 1–14.
Shin, H. H., Hong, S. Y. (2011). Intercomparison of planetary boundary-layer parametrizations in the WRFmodel for a single day from CASES-99. Boundary-
Layer Meteorology, 139(2), 261–281.
Steeneveld, G. J., van de Wiel, B. J. H., Holtslag, A. A. M. (2006). Modeling the evolution of the atmospheric boundary layer coupled to the land surface for three contrasting nights in CASES-99. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 63(3), 920–935.
Sun, J., Mahrt, L., Banta, R. M., Pichugina, Y. L. (2012).Turbulence regimes and turbulence intermittency in the stable boundary layer during CASES-99. Journal
of the Atmospheric Sciences, 69(1), 338–351.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
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.
In particular,
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.
