Initial Results from the Diurnal Land/Atmosphere Coupling Experiment (DICE) Weizhong Zheng, Michael Ek, Ruiyu Sun, Jongil Han, Jiarui Dong and Helin Wei.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Joint GABLS-GLASS/LoCo workshop, September 2004, De Bilt, Netherlands Interactions of the land-surface with the atmospheric boundary layer: Single.

Advertisements

1D Dice Experiment at Meteo-France and LES preliminary result E. Bazile, I. Beau, F. Couvreux and P. Le Moigne (CNRM/GAME) DICE Workshop Exeter October.

University of Houston IMAQS MM5 Meteorological Modeling for Houston-Galveston Area Air Quality Simulations Daewon W. Byun Bonnie Cheng University of Houston.

Acknowledge: Mike Ek provides most of slides here

Jordan Bell NASA SPoRT Summer Intern  Background  Goals of Project  Methodology  Analysis of Land Surface Model Results  Severe weather case.

THE EFFECT OF THE SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS ON THE DICE RESULTS SEEN BY THE MESONH MODEL M. A. Jiménez, P. Le Moigne and J. Cuxart DICE workshop, October.

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

Jared H. Bowden Saravanan Arunachalam

New Directions for WRF Land Surface Modeling 1 Polar WRF Workshop – 3 November 2011 Michael Barlage Research Applications Laboratory (RAL) National Center.

Some Approaches and Issues related to ISCCP-based Land Fluxes Eric F Wood Princeton University.

1 Application of Satellite Land Measurements in Improving NCEP Numerical Weather Prediction Weizhong Zheng, Michael Ek, Helin Wei, Jesse Meng, Jiarui Dong.

Menglin Jin Department of Meteorology, San Jośe State University The Use of Satellite Observation.

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

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

Simulate Urban-induced Climate Change Via EOS Observations and Land Surface Model Dr. Menglin Jin, Meteorology Dept, U University of Maryland, College.

Land Surface Fluxes in Coupled Land/Atmosphere Analysis Systems Michael Bosilovich, NASA GSFC And Collaborators.

GFS Deep and Shallow Cumulus Convection Schemes

HWRF Model Sensitivity to Non-hydrostatic Effects Hurricane Diagnostics and Verification Workshop May 4, 2009 Katherine S. Maclay Colorado State University.

Warm Season Precipitation Predictions over North America with the Eta Regional Climate Model Model Sensitivity to Initial Land States and Choice of Domain.

Improved Land Modeling for Drought Monitoring and Seasonal Hydrological Prediction Including Groundwater Mickael Ek, Rongqian Yang, Youlong Xia, Jesse.

Application of Satellite Land Surface Observations in Improving NCEP Numerical Weather Prediction Weizhong Zheng 1,2 and Mike Ek 1 1 NOAA/NCEP/Environmental.

THE EFFECT OF THE SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS ON THE DICE RESULTS SEEN BY THE MESONH MODEL M. A. Jiménez, P. Le Moigne and J. Cuxart DICE workshop, October.

Mesoscale Modeling Review the tutorial at: –In class.

Earth Science Division National Aeronautics and Space Administration 18 January 2007 Paper 5A.4: Slide 1 American Meteorological Society 21 st Conference.

CAUSES (Clouds Above the United States and Errors at the Surface) "A new project with an observationally-based focus, which evaluates the role of clouds,

UMAC data callpage 1 of 11NLDAS EMC Operational Models North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS) Michael Ek Land-Hydrology Team Leader Environmental.

© Crown copyright Met Office DICE project Adrian Lock and Martin Best.

Project Title: High Performance Simulation using NASA Model and Observation Products for the Study of Land Atmosphere Coupling and its Impact on Water.

1. Objectives Impacts of Land Use Changes on California’s Climate Hideki Kanamaru Masao Kanamitsu Experimental Climate Prediction.

NW NCNE SCSESW Rootzone: TOTAL PERCENTILEANOMALY Noah VEGETATION TYPE 2-meter Column Soil Moisture GR2/OSU LIS/Noah 01 May Climatology.

1 NCEP Production Suite Review: “Land Surface Guidance Systems” EMC Land-Hydrology Team: Michael Ek, Jesse Meng, Rongqian Yang, Helin Wei, Youlong Xia,

1 Soil Moisture Assimilation in NCEP Global Forecast System Weizhong Zheng 1, Jerry Zhan 2, Jiarui Dong 1, Michael Ek 1 1 Environmental Modeling Center,

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

Thrusts of Noah LSM Development and Land Data Assimilation at NCEP: recent ops upgrades, testbeds, validation, recent lessons, physics changes, calibration,

NCEP Production Suite Review: Land-Hydrology at NCEP

Coupling of the Common Land Model (CLM) to RegCM in a Simulation over East Asia Allison Steiner, Bill Chameides, Bob Dickinson Georgia Institute of Technology.

MM5/VIC Modeling Evaluation of the Influence of Antecedent Soil Moisture on Variability of the North American Monsoon System Chunmei Zhu a, Yun Qian b,

Status report from the Lead Centre for Surface Processes and Assimilation E. Rodríguez-Camino (INM) and S. Gollvik (SMHI)

NCEP Production Suite Review: “Land Surface Guidance Systems” EMC Land-Hydrology Team: Michael Ek, Jesse Meng, Rongqian Yang, Helin Wei, Youlong Xia,

The Role of Antecedent Soil Moisture on Variability of the North American Monsoon System Chunmei Zhu a, Yun Qian b, Ruby Leung b, David Gochis c, Tereza.

1 Transitioning Land Surface Skin Temperature and Snow Improvement to Operation at NCEP/EMC Xubin Zeng (University of Arizona, Tucson) Zhuo Wang (NESDIS)

Forecast simulations of Southeast Pacific Stratocumulus with CAM3 and CAM3-UW. Cécile Hannay (1), Jeffrey Kiehl (1), Dave Williamson (1), Jerry Olson (1),

Investigating Land-Atmosphere CO 2 Exchange with a Coupled Biosphere-Atmosphere Model: SiB3-RAMS K.D. Corbin, A.S. Denning, I. Baker, N. Parazoo, A. Schuh,

A Numerical Study of Early Summer Regional Climate and Weather. Zhang, D.-L., W.-Z. Zheng, and Y.-K. Xue, 2003: A Numerical Study of Early Summer Regional.

Implementation and preliminary test of the unified Noah LSM in WRF F. Chen, M. Tewari, W. Wang, J. Dudhia, NCAR K. Mitchell, M. Ek, NCEP G. Gayno, J. Wegiel,

Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss WG 3: Overview status report COSMO General Meeting, 19.

GLASS/GABLS De Bilt Sept Boundary layer land surface as a coupled system Alan Betts (Atmospheric Research) and Anton Beljaars (ECMWF) How to build.

Current and Future Initialization of WRF Land States at NCEP Ken Mitchell NCEP/EMC WRF Land Working Group Workshop 18 June 2003.

NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center & *Environmental Modeling Center Camp Springs, MD Impact of High-Frequency Variability of Soil Moisture on Seasonal.

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

Evapotranspiration Estimates over Canada based on Observed, GR2 and NARR forcings Korolevich, V., Fernandes, R., Wang, S., Simic, A., Gong, F. Natural.

Advances in Lake-Effect Process Prediction within NOAA’s Climate Forecast System for North America: A Project Progress Report Jiming Jin and Shaobo Zhang.

Entrainment Ratio, A R -  R = c p  i / c p  s  sfc  ent c p  i c p  s PBL Schemes  = YSU  = MYJ  = MRF 12Z 00Z  adv Science issue: Assess.

1 Making upgrades to an operational model : An example Jongil Han and Hua-Lu Pan NCEP/EMC GRAPES-WRF Joint Workshop.

Modeling and Evaluation of Antarctic Boundary Layer

A Brief Introduction to CRU, GHCN, NCEP2, CAM3.5 Yi-Chih Huang.

Module 17 MM5: Climate Simulation BREAK. Regional Climate Simulation for the Pan-Arctic using MM5 William J. Gutowski, Jr., Helin Wei, Charles Vörösmarty,

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

Performance Comparison of an Energy- Budget and the Temperature Index-Based (Snow-17) Snow Models at SNOTEL Stations Fan Lei, Victor Koren 2, Fekadu Moreda.

1 Xiaoyan Jiang, Guo-Yue Niu and Zong-Liang Yang The Jackson School of Geosciences The University of Texas at Austin 03/20/2007 Feedback between the atmosphere,

Land-Surface evolution forced by predicted precipitation corrected by high-frequency radar/satellite assimilation – the RUC Coupled Data Assimilation System.

Korea Institute of Atmospheric Prediction Systems (KIAPS) ( 재 ) 한국형수치예보모델개발사업단 Comparison of Radiation Schemes Using a Single Colum Model Joonsuk Lee Jung-Yoon.

Forecasts of Southeast Pacific Stratocumulus with the NCAR, GFDL and ECMWF models. Cécile Hannay (1), Dave Williamson (1), Jim Hack (1), Jeff Kiehl (1),

Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM) Suryachandra A. Rao Colloborators: Hemant, Subodh, Samir, Ashish & Kiran Dynamical Seasonal Prediction.

Matt Vaughan Class Project ATM 621

Surface Energy Budget, Part I

The Surface Energy Budget, Part II

Coupled atmosphere-ocean simulation on hurricane forecast

Weather forecasting in a coupled world

Land surface analysis over India using High Resolution Land Data Assimilation System (HRLDAS) H P Nayak and M Mandal Centre for Oceans, Rivers, Atmosphere.

Presentation transcript:

Initial Results from the Diurnal Land/Atmosphere Coupling Experiment (DICE) Weizhong Zheng, Michael Ek, Ruiyu Sun, Jongil Han, Jiarui Dong and Helin Wei NOAA/NCEP/EMC, College Park, MD 20740, USA DICE Workshop UK Met Office, Exeter, October

 DICE  DICE Objective: Make an assessment of the impact of land-atmosphere feedbacks by first assessing the land and single-column atmosphere models separately, constrained by observational data, and then identifying changes due to coupling (DICE Project, 2013).  Examine the performance of NCEP SCM (GFS) and Noah land surface model with the DICE data set. (1) OBS ==> Noah or SCM (Stage 1a and 1b) (2) SCM and Noah coupled to include the land/atmos feedbacks (Stage 2) OBJECTIVES 2

NCEP SCM (GFS) NCEP GFS: Global Forecast System Resolution: T-574 (1760x880) / T190 (576x288) Vertical levels: 64 (~22m for the lowest model level) Time step: 7.5 min PBL scheme: MRF PBL (Troen and Mahrt, 1986; Hong and Pan, 1996) Land surface processes: Noah V2.7 (Michael Ek et al., 2003) Radiation scheme: LW—Rapid Radiative Transfer Model (AER, Mlawer et al. 1997) SW-- Rapid Radiative Transfer Model version 2 (AER). Convection scheme: Deep convection and shallow convection 3

From Mike Ek NCEP-NCAR unified Noah land model Noah coupled with NCEP models: North American Mesoscale model (NAM; short-range), Global Forecast System (GFS; medium-range), Climate Forecast System (CFS; seasonal), & other NCEP modeling systems (i.e. NLDAS & GLDAS). Surface energy (linearized) & water budgets; 4 soil layers. Forcing: downward radiation, precip., temp., humidity, pressure, wind. Land states: Tsfc, Tsoil *, soil water * and soil ice, canopy water *, snow depth and snow density. *prognostic Land data sets: veg. type, green vegetation fraction, soil type, snow-free albedo & maximum snow albedo.

Noah Setup Some related parameters setup in the Noah Veg type: 12 (Cultivations, SiB-1 veg. class categories) Soil type: 2 (Silty clay loam, Zobler soil class categoreis) Albedo: GVF: 0.39 Emissivity: 1.0 Z0: (m) Rsmin: 40 5

DICE: Diurnal land/atmosphere coupling experiment --- Noah off-line run Model: Noah v2.7 Case: CASES-99 field experiment in Kansas; 3 days: 19UTC Oct. 23 – 19 UTC Oct. 26, 1999 First Stage: EXP: Noah_Offline OBS => Noah Obs atmos forcing ==> Noah 3 days: 19UTC Oct. 23 – 19 UTC Oct. 26,

Comparison of surface fluxes between simulation and observation Black: Observation Red : Simulation (OBS ==>Noah) Too large latent heat flux simulated by Noah during daytime, compared with the observation. 7

Comparison of surface momentum fluxes (u- and v-component) Black: Observation Red : Simulation (OBS ==>Noah) 8

Comparison of upward SW and LW at the surface Black: Observation Red : Simulation (Obs ==> Noah) ( albedo=0.211; emissivity=1.0 ) 9

Comparison of Tskin between simulation and observation Black: Observation Red : Simulation (OBS ==>Noah) The surface skin temperature simulated by Noah is about 5-7 degrees lower than the observation during daytime. 10

DICE: Diurnal land/atmosphere coupling experiment --- SCM (GFS) with Noah Models: SCM (GFS v2010) (Noah v2.7) (Ruiyu Sun, PBL team) Case: CASES-99 field experiment in Kansas; 3 days: 19UTC Oct. 23 – 19 UTC Oct. 26, 1999 First Stage: EXP: SCM_Obs ; OBS => SCM Obs sfc fluxes & Large-scale atmos forcing ==> SCM Second Stage: EXP: SCM_Noah SCM coupled with Noah including the land/atmos feedbacks. 11

Large atmospheric forcing for SCM provided by the DICE data set Horizontal advection heat rateHorizontal advection moisture change 12

Large atmospheric forcing for SCM provided by the DICE data set Horizontal advection u-comp changeHorizontal advection v-comp change 13

Comparison of simulated temperature profiles SCM_Obs: SCM driven by observed sfc fluxes & large-scale atmos forcing SCM_Noah: SCM coupled with Noah including the land/atmos feedbacks. 14

SCM_Obs: SCM driven by observed sfc fluxes & large-scale atmos forcing SCM_Noah: SCM coupled with Noah including the land/atmos feedbacks. Comparison of simulated specific humidity profiles High simulated moisture near the surface 15

SCM_Obs: SCM driven by observed sfc fluxes & large-scale atmos forcing SCM_Noah: SCM coupled with Noah including the land/atmos feedbacks. Comparison of simulated u-component profiles 16

SCM_Obs: SCM driven by observed sfc fluxes & large-scale atmos forcing SCM_Noah: SCM coupled with Noah including the land/atmos feedbacks. Comparison of simulated v-component profiles 17

Comparison of vertical diffusion heat rates SCM_Obs: SCM driven by observed sfc fluxes & large-scale atmos forcing SCM_Noah: SCM coupled with Noah including the land/atmos feedbacks. 18

Comparison of vertical diffusion moisture change rates SCM_Obs: SCM driven by observed sfc fluxes & large-scale atmos forcing SCM_Noah: SCM coupled with Noah including the land/atmos feedbacks. 19

Comparison of vertical diffusion du/dt SCM_Obs: SCM driven by observed sfc fluxes & large-scale atmos forcing SCM_Noah: SCM coupled with Noah including the land/atmos feedbacks. 20

Comparison of vertical diffusion dv/dt SCM_Obs: SCM driven by observed sfc fluxes & large-scale atmos forcing SCM_Noah: SCM coupled with Noah including the land/atmos feedbacks. 21

Comparison of simulated PBL height SCM_Obs: SCM driven by observed sfc fluxes & large-scale atmos forcing SCM_Noah: SCM coupled with Noah including the land/atmos feedbacks. High PBL height ? 22

Comparison of surface fluxes between simulation and observation Black: Observation Red : Simulation from SCM_Noah Too large latent heat flux simulated by Noah during daytime, compared with the observation. 23

Black: Observation Red : Simulation from SCM_Noah Comparison of surface momentum fluxes 24

Black: Observation Red : Simulation from SCM_Noah Comparison of upward SW and LW at the surface Lower upward LW at the surface because of lower simulated skin temperature during daytime. 25

Black: Observation Red : Simulation from SCM_Noah Comparison of surface skin temperatures T skin from Noah off-line driven by the observed atmospheric forcing. 26

Summary: The NCEP SCM (GFS) coupled with Noah land surface model was examined with the DICE data set, and the result shows as follows: 1) The Noah off-line run driven by the observed atmospheric forcing shows that the Noah model can reasonably capture the surface momentum and sensible heat fluxes but substantially overestimate the latent heat flux and underestimate the surface skin temperature during daytime; 2) The SCM coupled with Noah run shows that the higher moisture near the surface because of higher latent heat flux, compared with the SCM run driven by observed surface fluxes and large-scale atmospheric forcing Future: (a) Ensemble runs: - Use set of sfc fluxes derived by other LSMs to drive NCEP SCM; - Use set of atmos derived by other SCMs to drive Noah. (b) Investigate parameterization schemes related to the surface fluxes in NCEP SCM and Noah land surface model as well as their coupling. 27

Thank you! Questions? 28