Justin Glisan Iowa State University Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences RACM Project Update: ISU Atmospheric Modeling Component: Part 1 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 1

Outline Some history Date Set Selection and Evaluation Polar WRF model setup (CU/ISU) Implementation Initial Work/Results Future Work/PhD Research 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 2

Data Set Selection and Evaluation History ECMWF ERA40 ECMWF TOGA NCAR DSS ERA40 NCAR/DOE Reanalysis 2 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 3

Some History… This will take a couple of slides Began research at ISU with Polar MM5 July 2008: Started running WRF2.2 – Problems at ISU – Fixed! August 2008: WRF3.0 Runs configured for the Arctic and initialized with GFS data 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 4

More History… August-September 2008: ECMWF data sets – ERA40 – TOGA September-October 2008: ERA40 – ECMWF – DSS (NCAR) 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 5

ECMWF Data Sets ERA40 – PSFC not native – WRF needs PSFC for initialization – NCAR produced a post-processed log-psfc Discrepancies found over the ocean (slp & psfc) Concentric ringing around continental margins TOGA – basically the real-time analysis from the forecasting runs – PSFC included in this data set – Mix with ERA40 sub-surface and upper-air data 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 6

Problems with ERA40/TOGA TOGA does not include some sfc/sub-sfc fields Both CU and ISU uncomfortable mixing atmospheric data sets However, for model runs lasting less than several years, the hybrid method may be viable 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 7

Solution to ECMWF “Problem” DSS ERA40 log-sfcp + ECMWF ERA40 Use of NCEP/DOE Reanalysis 2 dataset – Not first choice for polar runs – Known error, which caused initial segmentation faults – Pan-Arctic simulations will have boundaries on the edge of polar region 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 8

Polar WRF model setup Using physics parameterizations tested at the University of Colorado 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 9

Current Polar WRF Physics Parameterizations 1.ra_lw_physics 2.ra_sw_physics 3.bl_pbl_physics 4.sf_sfclay_physics 5.sf_surface_physics 6. mp_physics 7. cu_physics 1.ra_lw_physics = 1 (RRTM) 2.ra_sw_physics = 2 (Goddard) 3.bl_pbl_physics = 1 (YSU) 4.sf_sfclay_physics = 1 (MM5) 5.sf_surface_physics = 1 (Noah) 6. mp_physics = 10 (Morrison) 7.cu_physics = 1 (Kain- Fritsch) 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 10

ISU/CU Plan of Action 1.NCAR/DOE R2 2.ECMWF-ERA40/TOGA 3.ERA40/DSS ERA40 log-psfc 4.ARCMIP Domain runs – Assess the how changes in boundary conditions from two different sources affects the simulation – Indirect assessment of the quality of the boundary conditions sources 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 11

Implementation of the ISU/CU Plan SHEBA Test Case Pan-Arctic Case R2 Runs ERA40/TOGA Runs (ARSC) 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 12

SHEBA Test Case WRF3.0 initialized with R2 data sets 01 – 30 September, 2000 – ARCMIP Domain – Test case – Six nodes, 18 hours Grid used for run – 50km horizontal – 31 vertical levels – 50 hPa model top 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 13

Pan-Arctic Test Case Same setup as SHEBA test case Increased nodes on Derecho to 12 – One month run – Around 18 hours computing time Results compared to ECMWF and NCEP reanalyses 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 14

3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 15

Initial Work/Results from ISU Model Procedure 13-Month Run Initial Results 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 16

MSLP Biases Comparison between WRF output and R2 data Selected three months – Cold season: January, 2001 – Warm season: June, 2001 – Seasonal Transition: September, 2001 Analysis Plots 1.Monthly MSLP bias 2.WRF MSLP & R2 MSLP 3.WRF 2-m T vs. ECMWF ERA40 Reanalysis 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 17

3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 18

3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 19

3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 20

3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 21

3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 22

3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 23

3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 24

3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 25

3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 26

3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 27

Initial MSLP Findings Average central pressure varied, on average, by hPa Some variation attributed to phase differences Differences between the WRF and R2 Positive departures found near domain boundaries Negative departures found near the interior 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 28

Initial 2-m Temperature Analysis Plots show relatively good agreement of the 0 o isotherm However, more analysis is needed 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 29

Future Work/PhD Research Analysis of Extreme ATMS Behavior Uncoupled and Coupled Model 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 30

Extreme Model Behavior Persistent pressure systems which lead to extreme temp. and precip. regimes Increased coastal erosion (attributed to high intensity storms) – This brings to mind certain ecosystems effects such as permafrost melt, glaciers, snow, etc. 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 31

Coupled vs. Uncoupled One thing we want to understand is how observations actually compare to output from: – Uncoupled atmospheric model (WRF) – Coupled model (RACM) Interactions between the planetary and synoptic scales Sea ice evolution w.r.t to future climate regimes 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 32

Questions? 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 33