2002 MM5 Model Evaluation 12 & 36 km Sensitivity Tests

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

WRAP RMC Phase II Wind Blown Dust Project ENVIRON International Corporation and University of California, Riverside August 24, 2004.

Advertisements

Updates on NOAA MM5 Assessment Where we left off Buoy assessment Temperature problems Solar radiation assessment Z T simulation Analysis nudging Where.

2002 MM5 Model Evaluation 12 vs. 36 km Results Chris Emery, Yiqin Jia, Sue Kemball-Cook, and Ralph Morris ENVIRON International Corporation Zion Wang UCR.

Jared H. Bowden Saravanan Arunachalam

Sensitivity of High-Resolution Simulations of Hurricane Bob (1991) to Planetary Boundary Layer Parameterizations SCOTT A. BRAUN AND WEI-KUO TAO PRESENTATION.

Dynamical Downscaling of CCSM Using WRF Yang Gao 1, Joshua S. Fu 1, Yun-Fat Lam 1, John Drake 1, Kate Evans 2 1 University of Tennessee, USA 2 Oak Ridge.

Recent Climate Change Modeling Results Eric Salathé Climate Impacts Group University of Washington.

Assessing The Impact of LULCC on The Greater Phoenix Area Matei Georgescu Center for Environmental Prediction – Rutgers University The Fourth Symposium.

Transitioning unique NASA data and research technologies to the NWS 1 Evaluation of WRF Using High-Resolution Soil Initial Conditions from the NASA Land.

Recent Climate Change Modeling Results Eric Salathé Climate Impacts Group University of Washington.

Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 2011 WRF Modeling Model Performance Evaluation University of North Carolina (UNC-IE)

1 An Overview of the NARCCAP WRF Simulations L. Ruby Leung Pacific Northwest National Laboratory NARCCAP Users Meeting NCAR, Boulder, CO April ,

Tanya L. Otte and Robert C. Gilliam NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC (In partnership with U.S. EPA National Exposure Research.

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: Meteorological Modeling Presentation to the SWCAA By ENVIRON International Corporation Alpine Geophysics, LLC.

ASSIMILATION OF GOES-DERIVED CLOUD PRODUCTS IN MM5.

The National Environmental Agency of Georgia L. Megrelidze, N. Kutaladze, Kh. Kokosadze NWP Local Area Models’ Failure in Simulation of Eastern Invasion.

Jerold Herwehe 1, Kiran Alapaty 1, Chris Nolte 1, Russ Bullock 1, Tanya Otte 1, Megan Mallard 1, Jimy Dudhia 2, and Jack Kain 3 1 Atmospheric Modeling.

November 1, 2013 Bart Brashers, ENVIRON Jared Heath Bowden, UNC 3SAQS WRF Modeling Recommendations.

Russ Bullock 11 th Annual CMAS Conference October 17, 2012 Development of Methodology to Downscale Global Climate Fields to 12km Resolution.

Modeling Studies of Air Quality in the Four Corners Region National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Cooperative Institute for Research in.

CMAQ Evaluation Preliminary 2002 version C WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling: Annual CMAQ Performance Evaluation using Preliminary 2002 version C Emissions.

Page1 PAGE 1 The influence of MM5 nudging schemes on CMAQ simulations of benzo(a)pyrene concentrations and depositions in Europe Volker Matthias, GKSS.

2004 Workplan WRAP Regional Modeling Center Prepared by: Gail Tonnesen, University of California Riverside Ralph Morris, ENVIRON Corporation Zac Adelman,

Verification and Case Studies for Urban Effects in HIRLAM Numerical Weather Forecasting A. Baklanov, A. Mahura, C. Petersen, N.W. Nielsen, B. Amstrup Danish.

Comparison of Different Approaches NCAR Earth System Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research NCAR is Sponsored by NSF and this work is partially.

Jonathan Pleim 1, Robert Gilliam 1, and Aijun Xiu 2 1 Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division, NOAA, Research Triangle Park, NC (In partnership with the.

WRAP Regional Modeling Center April 25-26, 2006 AoH Work Group Meeting Regional Modeling Center Status Report AoH Workgroup Meeting Seattle, WA April 25-26,

Accounting for Uncertainties in NWPs using the Ensemble Approach for Inputs to ATD Models Dave Stauffer The Pennsylvania State University Office of the.

Meteorological Data Analysis Urban, Regional Modeling and Analysis Section Division of Air Resources New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Seasonal Modeling (NOAA) Jian-Wen Bao Sara Michelson Jim Wilczak Curtis Fleming Emily Piencziak.

1 CRGAQS: Meteorological Modeling prepared for Southwest Clean Air Agency 19 June 2006 prepared by Alpine Geophysics, LLC ENVIRON International Corp.

1 Impact on Ozone Prediction at a Fine Grid Resolution: An Examination of Nudging Analysis and PBL Schemes in Meteorological Model Yunhee Kim, Joshua S.

International Workshop on Antarctic Clouds Columbus, OH Polar Meteorology Group, Byrd Polar Research Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Template Reducing Vertical Transport Over Complex Terrain in Photochemical Grid Models Chris Emery, Ed Tai, Ralph Morris, Greg Yarwood ENVIRON International.

GEOS-CHEM Modeling for Boundary Conditions and Natural Background James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling.

WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04 WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling: Emission, Meteorology Inputs and CMAQ Performance.

Evaluation of regional climate simulations with WRF model in conditions of central Europe Jan Karlický, Tomáš Halenka, Michal Belda, (Charles University.

AoH/MF Meeting, San Diego, CA, Jan 25, 2006 WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling: Summary of 2005 Modeling Results Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Mohammad Omary, Chao-Jung.

WRAP RMC Phase II Wind Blown Dust Project Results & Status ENVIRON International Corporation and University of California, Riverside Dust Emission Joint.

Numerical investigation of the multi-scale processes inducing convection initiation for the 12 June 2002 IHOP case study Preliminary study: testing the.

WRAP Workshop on Fire, Carbon and Dust – Sacramento, CA - May 23-24, 2006 WRAP RMC Phase II Wind Blown Dust Project Regional Modeling Center ENVIRON; UCR.

WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver CO 7/22/04 December WRAP Modeling Forum Conf Call Call Information: December 20, 1pm.

Regional Climate Change in the Pacific Northwest Eric Salathé Climate Impacts Group University of Washington With: Cliff Mass, Patrick Zahn, Rick Steed.

WRAP Technical Work Overview

Land Use in Regional Climate Modeling

CENRAP Modeling and Weight of Evidence Approaches

Operational Verification at HNMS

Numerical Weather Forecast Model (governing equations)

WRF Four-Dimensional Data Assimilation (FDDA)

9th Annual Meteorological Users’ Meeting

Coupled atmosphere-ocean simulation on hurricane forecast

CRC NARSTO-Northeast Modeling Study

Dynamical downscaling of ERA-40 with WRF in complex terrain in Norway – comparison with ENSEMBLES U. Heikkilä, A. D. Sandvik and A.

Recent Climate Change Modeling Results

The Experimental Climate Prediction Center Regional Spectral Model (ECPC-RSM) Contribution to the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program.

Winter storm forecast at 1-12 h range

An Overview of the NARCCAP WRF Simulations and Analysis

Recent Climate Change Modeling Results

The West Coast Thermal Trough

Multimodel Ensemble Reconstruction of Drought over the Continental U.S

Impact of GOES Enhanced WRF Fields on Air Quality Model Performance

Junhua Zhang and Wanmin Gong

A. Topographic radiation correction in COSMO: gridscale or subgridscale? B. COSMO-2: convection resolving or convection inhibiting model? Matteo Buzzi.

University of Washington Center for Science in the Earth System

Integration of NCAR DART-EnKF to NCAR-ATEC multi-model, multi-physics and mutli- perturbantion ensemble-RTFDDA (E-4DWX) forecasting system Linlin Pan 1,

Multimodel Ensemble Reconstruction of Drought over the Continental U.S

The Value of Nudging in the Meteorology Model for Retrospective CMAQ Simulations Tanya L. Otte NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, RTP, NC (In partnership with.

Analysis of the MM5-Simulated Surface Fields with Three PBL schemes over the Eastern U.S. during 6-16 August 2002 Winston, Mike Ku, and Gopal Sistla NYSEC-DAR.

REGIONAL AND LOCAL-SCALE EVALUATION OF 2002 MM5 METEOROLOGICAL FIELDS FOR VARIOUS AIR QUALITY MODELING APPLICATIONS Pat Dolwick*, U.S. EPA, RTP, NC, USA.

WRAP 2014 Regional Modeling

Presentation transcript:

2002 MM5 Model Evaluation 12 & 36 km Sensitivity Tests Chris Emery, Yiqin Jia, and Ralph Morris ENVIRON International Corporation Zion Wang UCR CE-CERT Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Regional Modeling Center (RMC) National RPO Meeting May 25, 2004

Addition of 12-km WRAP Grid IC/BC’s extracted from 36-km MM5 fields 3-D FDDA fields extracted from 36-km MM5 fields Preliminary 5-day run starting 12Z July 1

Subdomains for 12-km Model Evaluation 1 = Pacific NW 2 = SW 3 = North 4 = Desert SW 5 = CenrapN 6 = CenrapS 7 = Great Lakes 8 = Ohio Valley 9 = SE 10 = NE 11 = MidAtlantic

2002 MM5 12 km Sensitivity Tests Tests with 12-km grid: Run 1 (initial simulation): Soil moisture nudging on Initial soil moisture from 36-km output 3-D FDDA from 36-km output (no 2-D surface FDDA) No Obs FDDA Run 2: Soil moisture nudging off Initial soil moisture from LANDUSE.TBL 3-D FDDA from 36-km output Observational FDDA from NCAR DS.472

2002 MM5 12 km Sensitivity Tests Run 3: Soil moisture nudging off Initial soil moisture from 36-km output 3-D FDDA from 36-km output Obs FDDA from NCAR DS.472 Run 4: Initial soil moisture from 36-km EDAS fields 3-D FDDA from 36-km EDAS fields

2002 MM5 12 km Sensitivity Tests Overall: No significant impact on wind speed/direction performance in any run Focus on temperature & humidity performance Run 2 (soil nudging off, default moisture, Obs FDDA): Best performance in Desert SW, but worst in other regions Run 3 (soil nudging off, Obs FDDA): Performance slightly improved in all 3 regions

2002 MM5 12 km Sensitivity Tests Run 4 (soil nudging off, EDAS moisture, EDAS + Obs FDDA): Similar to Run 3, but even better performance in Desert SW Removing soil moisture nudging has a positive impact on performance Using EDAS to provide initial soil moisture and analysis FDDA (instead of 36-km MM5 results) has a positive impact on performance Obs FDDA has negligible impact on performance

2002 MM5 36 km Sensitivity Tests Tests with 36-km grid: Run 0 (initial simulation): Soil moisture nudging on 3-D & 2-D nudging to EDAS enhanced with NWS observations Cumulus parameterization is KF LSM/PBL is P-X Run 1: Soil moisture nudging off

2002 MM5 36 km Sensitivity Tests Run 2: Soil moisture nudging off Cumulus parameterization changed to KF II (based on comparison to VISTAS results) Run 3: LSM/PBL changed to NOAH and modified-MRF (removal of “scaled virtual temperature excess” and “convective velocity” contribution in U* calculation)

2002 MM5 36 km Sensitivity Tests Overall: No significant impact on wind performance, generally sensitivity cases slightly reduce speed Focus on temperature & humidity performance Run 1 (soil nudging off): No significant impact in Desert SW Improved performance in SW Mixed performance in Pacific NW Run 2 (KF II): Similar results to Run 1 in SW and Pacific NW Good improvement in Desert SW

2002 MM5 36 km Sensitivity Tests Run 3 (NOAH + modified MRF): Best overall performance in Desert SW Worst performance in SW and Pacific NW Summary: Soil moisture nudging is generally a negative attribute KF II helps performance where most convection occurs Moving to a different LSM/PBL combo is not a universally good idea

New 36/12 Nested Sensitivity Test Run 5: 2-way nesting No soil moisture nudging KF II P-X LSM/PBL Wind performance similar to all other runs in all regions Similar temperature & humidity performance to other tests in SW and Pacific NW Best temperature & humidity performance of all runs in Desert SW

New 36/12 Nested Sensitivity Test Run 5 forms basis for revised 2002 36/12 WRAP simulations Identical physical configuration 1-way grid nesting (2-way set up but no feedback) Adds 2-D surface nudging on 12-km grid to EDAS enhanced with NWS observations