1. 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

2. 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

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

4. 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

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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 15

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

17. 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

18. 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 18

19. 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 19

20. 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 20

21. 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 21

22. 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 22

23. 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 23

24. 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 24

25. 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 25

26. 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 26

27. 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 27

28. Initial MSLP Findings Average central pressure varied, on average, by 04-06 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

29. 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

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

31. 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

32. 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

33. Questions? glisanj@iastate.edu 3rd DOE/RACM Meeting: Seattle, WA 33