ASM Project Update: Atmospheric Modeling

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Meteorologisches Institut der Universität München

Advertisements

A NUMERICAL PREDICTION OF LOCAL ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES A.V.Starchenko Tomsk State University.

Coupled versus uncoupled radiation and microphysicsMicrophysics droplet concentration 5. Conclusions The sea ice state simulated in RASM is sensitive to.

S ENSITIVITIES OF S PECTRAL N UDGING T OWARD M OISTURE FOR R EGIONAL C LIMATE M ODELING Tanya L. Otte 1, Martin J. Otte 1, Jared H. Bowden 2, and Christopher.

Atmospheric Boundary Layer evening transitions: a comparison between two experimental sites (CIBA-Spain and BLLAST-France) M. Sastre (1), C. Yagüe (1),

WRF Physics Options Jimy Dudhia. diff_opt=1 2 nd order diffusion on model levels Constant coefficients (khdif and kvdif) km_opt ignored.

The impact of mesoscale PBL parameterizations on the evolution of mixed-layer processes important for fire weather Joseph J. Charney USDA Forest Service,

Recent performance statistics for AMPS real-time forecasts Kevin W. Manning – National Center for Atmospheric Research NCAR Earth System Laboratory Mesoscale.

S4D WorkshopParis, France Polar Meteorology Group, Byrd Polar Research Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio A High-Resolution David H. Bromwich.

THORPEX-Pacific Workshop Kauai, Hawaii Polar Meteorology Group, Byrd Polar Research Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio David H. Bromwich.

John J. Cassano - University of Colorado Wieslaw Maslowski -Naval Postgraduate School William Gutowski - Iowa State University Dennis Lettenmaier – University.

Weather Research & Forecasting Model (WRF) Stacey Pensgen ESC 452 – Spring ’06.

The Effects of Grid Nudging on Polar WRF Forecasts in Antarctica Daniel F. Steinhoff 1 and David H. Bromwich 1 1 Polar Meteorology Group, Byrd Polar Research.

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

LAKE EFFECT SNOW SIMULATION John D McMillen. LAKE BONNEVILLE EFFECT SNOW.

WRF SLP Bias Issues Update from Santa Cruz meeting Matt Higgins John Cassano May 18,

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.

Atmospheric Modeling in an Arctic System Model John J. Cassano Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and Department of Atmospheric.

Jordan G. Powers and Kevin W. Manning Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Division NCAR Earth System Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Improvements of WRF Simulation Skills of Southeast United States Summer Rainfall: Focus on Physical Parameterization and Horizontal Resolution Laifang.

winter RADIATION FOGS at CIBA (Spain): Observations compared to WRF simulations using different PBL parameterizations Carlos Román-Cascón

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

ASR Preliminary Meeting Boulder, Colorado Polar Meteorology Group, Byrd Polar Research Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio David H. Bromwich,

Earth-Sun System Division National Aeronautics and Space Administration SPoRT SAC Nov 21-22, 2005 Regional Modeling using MODIS SST composites Prepared.

Lessons from ARCSyM David Bailey 1 and John Cassano 2 Amanda Lynch, William Chapman, John Walsh, Gunter Weller, Wanli Wu, Andrew Slater, Richard Cullather,

Aerosols in WRF-CHEM Eric Stofferahn George Mason University _07:00:00 (UTC)

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

Erik Crosman 1, John Horel 1, Chris Foster 1, Erik Neemann 1 1 University of Utah Department of Atmospheric Sciences Toward Improved NWP Simulations of.

Justin Glisan Iowa State University Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences RACM Project Update: ISU Atmospheric Modeling Component: Part 1 3rd.

Ensemble Prediction with Perturbed Initial and Lateral Boundary Conditions over Complex Terrain Jinhua Jiang, Darko Koracin, Ramesh Vellore Desert Research.

WRF Problems: Some Solutions, Some Mysteries Cliff Mass and David Ovens University of Washington.

Arctic System Reanalysis David H. Bromwich 1,2 and Keith M. Hines 1 1- Polar Meteorology Group Byrd Polar Research Center The Ohio State University Columbus,

Justin Glisan Iowa State University Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences RACM Project Update: ISU Atmospheric Modeling Component: Part 1 4th.

Are Numerical Weather Prediction Models Getting Better? Cliff Mass, David Ovens, and Jeff Baars University of Washington.

WRF Version 2: Physics Update Jimy Dudhia NCAR/MMM.

NARCCAP WRF Simulations L. Ruby Leung Pacific Northwest National Laboratory NARCCAP Users Meeting February , 2008 Boulder, CO.

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

Yuqing Wang and Chunxi Zhang International Pacific Research Center University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii.

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

RIME A possible experiment for Advancing Antarctic Weather Prediction David H. Bromwich 1, John J. Cassano 1, Thomas R. Parish 2, Keith M. Hines 1 1 -

Investigation of Microphysical Parameterizations of Snow and Ice in Arctic Clouds During M-PACE through Model- Observation Comparisons Amy Solomon 12 In.

Module 6 MM5: Overview William J. Gutowski, Jr. Iowa State University.

1 RUC Land Surface Model implementation in WRF Tanya Smirnova, WRFLSM Workshop, 18 June 2003.

Bias score versus precipitation threshold [mm/d] Model - observed precipitation [mm/d] Bias score at selected thresholds Pan-Arctic WRF Background Introduction.

Development of the Regional Arctic Climate System Model (RACM) --- Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Washington May, 2010.

AMPS Update – July 2010 Kevin W. Manning Jordan G. Powers Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Division NCAR Earth System Laboratory National Center for.

Reference Simulation Settings

Ozone Sensitivity to Nitric Oxide Emissions in WRF-Chem

Towards development of a Regional Arctic Climate System Model ---

Evaluating NWP Ensemble Configurations for AT&D Applications

WRF model runs of 2 and 3 August

Simulation of the Arctic Mixed-Phase Clouds

University of Washington Ensemble Systems for Probabilistic Analysis and Forecasting Cliff Mass, Atmospheric Sciences University of Washington.

The ACCIMA Project - Coupled Modeling of the High Southern Latitudes

Performance of the VIC land surface model in coupled simulations

Dr. Randhir Singh Indian Institute of Remote Sensing (IIRS)

An Overview of the NARCCAP WRF Simulations and Analysis

Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division,

Dr. Randhir Singh Indian Institute of Remote Sensing (IIRS)

Chris Misenis*, Xiaoming Hu, and Yang Zhang

Convective and orographically-induced precipitation study

Seong Soo Yum1, Wonheung Kim1, Jae-In Song1 and Chang Ki Kim2

High-Resolution Mid-Atlantic Forecasting Ensemble (HME)

Coastal Atmospheric Modeling for both Operational and Research Applications using the Weather Research Forecast (WRF) Model.

Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences

Cliff Mass and David Ovens University of Washington

Lightning Assimilation Techniques

Polar WRF (Ohio State Modifications)

WRAP 2014 Regional Modeling

Comparison of Simulated Top of Atmosphere Radiance Datasets

Presentation transcript:

ASM Project Update: Atmospheric Modeling John J. Cassano and Mark W. Seefeldt University of Colorado Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences

Goals for Year 1 of DOE Project Develop and evaluate Polar WRF Univ. of Colorado Sub-contract to Bromwich / Hines - OSU Coupling of WRF to CCSM cpl7 Lead by Juanxiong He, UAF

Strategy for Polar WRF Development Use lessons from development of Polar MM5 Identify parameterizations that are well-suited for polar use Preference for parameterizations that are most physically realistic Add “missing” physics Collaboration with several research groups OSU / BPRC NOAA ESRL NCAR University of Colorado

Polar WRF Evaluation Evaluate over a variety of polar surface types Ice sheet (Hines / Bromwich - Greenland) Sea ice / ocean (Hines / Bromwich and CU - SHEBA) Implementation of fractional sea ice treatment (OSU) Non-ice covered land Evaluate atmospheric state Evaluate atmospheric processes Are we getting the right answer for the right reasons? Initial work at University of Colorado Identify parameterizations that are inappropriate for polar use Identify “ideal” suite of model parameterizations Identify aspects of model in need of improvement

SHEBA Simulations Simulations during SHEBA year Model forcing (CU) January and June 1998 (CU) - climate mode January, June, and August 1998 (OSU) - forecast mode Model forcing (CU) ECMWF TOGA atmospheric data and SST ERA40 sea ice and soil state Model grid (CU) 50 km horizontal 31 vertical levels Model top: 50 mb

WRF Physics Land surface: Noah (Thermal diffusion) Longwave radiation: RRTM Shortwave radiation: Goddard (Dudhia) Boundary layer: YSU (MYJ) Microphysics: Morrison (WSM5) Cumulus: Kain-Fritsch (Grell-Devenyi) Bromwich / Hines have used a slightly different selection of model physics for their Greenland and SHEBA simulations

Shortwave Radiation: Goddard and Dudhia June 1998 Goddard SW RRTM LW WSM5 MP KF CU YSU PBL Noah LSM Dudhia SW

Land surface: Noah LSM and thermal diffusion January 1998 Noah LSM Dudhia SW RRTM LW WSM5 MP KF CU YSU PBL Thermal diffusion model

Cumulus: Kain-Fritsch and Grell-Devenyi June 1998 Kain-Fritsch Goddard RRTM LW Morrison MP MYJ PBL Noah LSM Grell-Devenyi

Cumulus: Kain-Fritsch and Grell-Devenyi June 1998 Kain-Fritsch Goddard RRTM LW Morrison MP MYJ PBL Noah LSM Grell-Devenyi

Cumulus: Kain-Fritsch and Grell-Devenyi June 1998 Kain-Fritsch Goddard RRTM LW Morrison MP MYJ PBL Noah LSM Grell-Devenyi

Boundary Layer: YSU and MYJ January 1998 YSU Goddard RRTM LW Morrison MP KF CU Noah LSM MYJ

Cloud Microphysics: Morrison and WSM5 January 1998 Morrison Goddard RRTM LW KF CU YSU PBL Noah LSM WSM5

Cloud Microphysics: Morrison and WSM5 June 1998 Morrison Goddard RRTM LW KF CU YSU PBL Noah LSM WSM5

Polar WRF and Polar MM5 January 1998 Polar WRF Polar MM5 Goddard RRTM LW Morrison MP KF CU YSU PBL Noah LSM Polar MM5

Polar WRF and Polar MM5 January 1998 Polar WRF Polar MM5 Goddard RRTM LW Morrison MP KF CU YSU PBL Noah LSM Polar MM5

Polar WRF and Polar MM5 June 1998 Polar WRF Polar MM5 Goddard RRTM LW Morrison MP KF CU YSU PBL Noah LSM Polar MM5

Polar WRF and Polar MM5 June 1998 Polar WRF Polar MM5 Goddard RRTM LW Morrison MP KF CU YSU PBL Noah LSM Polar MM5

Polar WRF and Polar MM5 June 1998 Polar WRF Polar MM5 Goddard RRTM LW Morrison MP KF CU YSU PBL Noah LSM Polar MM5

Conclusions: Polar WRF Development Some WRF physics options are clearly inappropriate for polar applications Dudhia SW: large negative bias in SWD Thermal diffusion soil model: large warm bias There appear to be issues with other physics options, which need more analysis Grell-Devenyi cumulus: excessive cloud cover MYJ PBL: wintertime cold bias Polar WRF has better skill than PMM5 for Jan Polar WRF has similar skill as PMM5 for June Processes in Polar WRF appear more realistic than in Polar MM5

Meetings, Presentations, and Publications Conferences DOE CCPP Science Team Meeting (Sept 07) Poster overview of RACM project SEARCH for DAMOCLES (Oct 07) Atmospheric Modeling in an Arctic System Model Polar Optimized WRF Little Alaska Weather Symposium (May 08) Development and evaluation of Polar WRF Publications Bromwich, D.H., K.M. Hines, and L.-S. Bai, 2008: Development and testing of Polar WRF. Part II. The Arctic Ocean, submitted to J. Geophys. Res.