1 / 36

CORRECTABLE BC-ERRORS WITHIN MESO-MET MODELS

CORRECTABLE BC-ERRORS WITHIN MESO-MET MODELS. R. Bornstein San Jose State University San Jose, CA pblmodel@hotmail.com Presented at 86th AMS Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA 30 January 2006. Acknowledgements. H. Taha, Altostratus & SJSU D. Hitchock & P. Smith, State of Texas

indiya
Télécharger la présentation

CORRECTABLE BC-ERRORS WITHIN MESO-MET MODELS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CORRECTABLE BC-ERRORS WITHIN MESO-MET MODELS R. Bornstein San Jose State University San Jose, CA pblmodel@hotmail.com Presented at 86th AMS Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA 30 January 2006

  2. Acknowledgements • H. Taha, Altostratus & SJSU • D. Hitchock & P. Smith, State of Texas • D. Byun, U. of Houston • J. Ching & S. Dupont, US EPA • S. Stetson, SWS Inc. • S. Burian, U. of Utah • D. Nowak, USFS • Funded by:NSF, USAID, DHS, LBL, LMMS, NASA • MY M.S.(ex)STUDENTS: J. Cheng, C. Lozej, F. Freedman, T. Ghidey, K. Craig, S. Kasakseh, R. Balmori

  3. OUTLINE • INTRODUCTION • SYNOPTIC FORCING • POORLY (AT BEST) KNOWN INPUT DATA • DEEP SOIL TEMP IC/C • SOIL MOISTURE IC • SST IC/BC • SFC/PBL FORCING • NON-URBAN • URBAN • CONCLUSION

  4. Theme of Talk:MESO-MET ATM-MODELS MUST CAPTURE B.C. FORCINGS IN CORRECT ORDER (1 of 2) e.g., AN O3 EPISODES OCCURS ON A GIVEN DAY: • NOT FROM CHANGING: TOPOGRAPHY & EMISSIONS • BUTDUE TO CHANGING (UPPER-LEVEL &/OR SFC) GC/SYNOPTIC PRESSURE-PATTERNS, WHICH • ENTER OUR MESO-SOLUTIONS FROM EITHER CORRECT OR IMPRECISE LARGER-SCALE MODEL-VALUES & WHICH • THUS ALLOW SCF MESO THERMAL-FORCINGS (i.e., UP/DOWN SLOPE, LAND/SEA, URBAN, CLOUDS/FOG) TO DEVELOP CORRECTLY OR INCORRECTLY

  5. CORRECT ORDER (2 of 2) MUST THUS CORRECTLY REPRODUCE: • UPPER-LEVEL Syn/GC FORCING FIRST pressure (the GC/Syn driver), which produces Syn/GC winds • TOPOGRAPHY NEXT grid spacing flow-channeling • MESO SFC-CONDITIONS LAST temp (the meso-driver) & sfc roughness  Meso-winds

  6. Correct GC/Synoptic forcing • Methodology: • Check large-scale forcing before simulations: • NWS charts vs. large-scale model input-fields • If correct  use analysis-nudging FDDA  correct synoptic-trends • Case studies: • SFBA Winter synoptic-storm (Lozej 1996) • Atlanta urban-thunderstorm (Craig 2000) • Ozone-episodes • LA (Boucouvala et al. 2003) • SFBA (Ghidey 2005)

  7. 1996 SFBA Winter-Storm (Lozej) • Obs storm went over SFBA • Wrong input large-scale IC/BC caused storm to • move too zonally and thus too fast • pass (and precipitate) too far north • Note: IC/BC more important for synoptic storms than for meso-systems (they are driven by surface-conditions) • Obs and MM5: next 3 slides

  8. SFBA SFBA GOES IR & SFC NWS 12 March, 12 UTC: Storm over SFBA

  9. 11 March L 12 March L • NCEP(2.50)/MM5 (27 km) (solid blue) & ETA (dash pink) • 500 mb heights (dam) at 12 UTC • Left:slight IC/BC errors in NCEP • ETA: digs deepervs • NCEP/MM5: more zonal • Right: storm goes too far N of SFBA & moves too quickly

  10. MM5 (upper) 3 hr precip max is thus N of observed precip (lower) max (at 50-km S of SFBA) SFBA

  11. Atlanta Summer Thunderstorm (Craig) • Obs: weak-cold front N of Atlanta • Large-scale IC/BC: front S of city • MM5 UHI-induced thunderstorm: 5-km deep, wmax 6-m/s, 8-cm precip • Should be: 9-km, 12-m/s, 14-cm • Source of problem: MM5-storm formed in stable-flow from N & not in unstable-flowfrom S • Data & MM5 results: next slide

  12. ATLANTA UHI-INITIATED STORM:OBS SAT & PRECIP (UPPER) & MM5 W & PRECIP (LOWER)

  13. LA Summer O3-episode (Boucouvula) • Obs of large scale IC/BC: Shift of meso-700 hPa high upper-level flow from N  NW-moving sea-breeze & max-O3 • was blocked by sfc-flow from N • stayed in San Fernando Valley • MM5: analysis nudging  got front and O3right (next slide)

  14. Lower: no analysis nudging MM5 sea-breeze front & O3-max not blocked from pass-ing to North b/t 2 Mts, as N-S opposing large-scale flow is weak Mt Mt Upper: analysis nudging MM5 sea-breeze front (blue line) & O3-max blocked from passing to-N b/t 2 Mts by strong opposing N-S large-scale flow (as in obs) Mt Mt

  15. SFBA Summer O3-episode (Ghidey) • Obs: daily max- O3 sequentially moved from Livermore to Sacramento to SJV • Large scale IC/BC: Shifting meos-700 hPa high  shifting meos-sfc low  changing sfc-flow  max-O3 changed location • MM5 (next 2 slides): good analysis-nudging good sfc-wind

  16. SAC episode day: D-1 700 hPa Syn H moved to Utah with coastal “bulge” & L in S-Cal correct SW flow from SFBA to Sac H H L

  17. SJV episode day: D-3 700 hPa Fresno eddy moved N & H moves inland flow around eddy blocks SFBA flow to SAC, but forces it S into SJV L H

  18. Topographic-Channeling (J. Cheng) • Horiz grid-spacing too-large  • Mt-passes not resolved  flow-direction is wrong • Mt-passes are too wide  speeds underestimated • Solution: decrease-spacing until wmax is unchanged • Case study (not shown): SFBA Richmond toxic-spill

  19. MM5 Non-urban Sfc-IC/BC Issues • Deep-soil temp: BC • Controls min-T • Values unknown & MM5-estimation is flawed • Soil-moisture: IC • Controls max-T • Values unknown & MM5-table values too specific • SST: IC/BC • Horiz coastal T-grad controls sea-breeze flow • We usually focus only on land-sfctemp • IC/BC SST values from large-scale model too coarse & not f(t)

  20. Summary for MM5:deep soil temp • Calculated as average large-scale model inputsurface-T during simulation-period • This assumes a zero time-lag b/t sfc and lower-level (about 1 m) soil-temps • But obs show • 2-3 month time-lag b/t these 2 temps • Larger-lag in low-conductivity dry-soils • Thus MM5 min-temps will always be too-high in summerand too-low in winter • We need to develop tech (beyond current trial and error) to account for lag: next 2 slides

  21. Mid-east Obs vs. MM5: 2 m temp(Kasakech ’06 AMS) First 2 days show GC/Syn trend not in MM5, as MM5-runs had no analysisnudging Obs Run 1 Run 4: Reduced Seep-soil T July 29 August 1 August 2 obs MM5:Run 4 July 31 Aug 1 Aug2 Standard-MM5 summer night-time min-T, But lower input deep-soil temp  better 2-m T results  better winds  better O3

  22. SCOS96 LA Temps (Boucouvual et al.) • RUN 1: has • No GC warming trend • Wrong max and min T RUN 5: corrected, as it used > Analysis nudging > Reduced deep-soil T 3-Aug 4-Aug 5-Aug 6-Aug

  23. MM5 input-table values:z0 problems • Water z0 = 0.01 cm • Only IC  updated internally by eq = f(MM5 u*) • But Eq only valid for open-sea smooth-swell conditions • Observed values for rough-sea coastal-areas ~ 1 cm  MM5 coastal-winds are over-estimated • Urban z0 = 80 cm • too low for tall cities: obs up to 3-4 m • Urban-winds: too fast • Must adjust input value or input GIS/RS f(x,y) • See next 2 slides

  24. 25-MM5 category (USGS) vegetation categories and physical parameters

  25. S. Stetson: Houston GIS/RS zo input Values up 3 m

  26. Importance of:detailed SST as f(x,y,t) • Theory Along-shore winds  off-shore Ekman ocean-transport  cold-water upwelling  atm & ocean cold-core Lows  altered atm pollutant-transport • *Need: detailed satellite SST-input • Case studies:see next 4 slides • Houston (Balmori, 2006 AMS) • NYC (Pullen et al., 2006 AMS)

  27. Houston MM5 2-m Temps at 4 PM:cold-core L from SST-eddy? L

  28. MM5 2-m cold-core L (in 3 domains)along-shore coastal-V  Houston ozone-episode L D-1 D-2 L D-3

  29. NYC SST + currents:Pullen et al. (2006 AMS) L

  30. Satellite SST Over Gulf of Mx:lots of detailshttp://www7333.nrlssc.navy.mil/

  31. Model-Urbanization Techniques • Urbanize momentum, thermoynamic , & TKE • surface & SBL: diagnostic eqs • PBL: prognostic eqs • From veg-canopy model (Yamada 1982) • Veg-param replacedwith GIS/RS urban-param/data • Brown and Williams (1998) • Masson (2000) • Martilli et al. (2001) in TVM/URBMET • Dupont, Ching, et al. (2003) in EPA/MM5 • Taha et al. (2005), Balmori et al. (2006b) in uMM5 • Detailed input urban-parameters as f(x,y) • Next: 2 slides

  32. Urbanized meso-met model TKE (z) hc =building top max urban effect _________________

  33. 1 km uMM5 Houston UHI: 8 PM, 21 Aug • Upper, L:MM5UHI (2.0 K) • Upper,R: uMM5 UHI (3.5 K) • Lower L: (uMM5-MM5) UHI LU/LC error

  34. Summary of how to obtaingood meso-met model results • 1st capture trends in large-scale forcing via • validated large-scale model input • analysis nudging • Then simulate correct meso sfc-T via correct • IC/BC deep soil-T (for min-T) • IC soil-moisture (for max-T) • Get good SSTs (from obs or ocean-models) for good sea-breeze flows • Use good urbanizations (scheme & inputs) for good temps, turbulence, & winds

  35. Overall Lessons • Models can’t be assumed to be • perfect • black boxes • If obs not available, it is OK to make reasonable educated estimates, e.g., for • Deep-soil temp • Soil moisture • Need datafor comparisons with simulated fields • Need good urbanization, e.g., uMM5 • Need to develop better PBLparameterizations

  36. Any questions?

More Related