Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byClinton Joseph Hall Modified over 9 years ago
1
Evaluation of regional climate simulations with WRF model in conditions of central Europe Jan Karlický, Tomáš Halenka, Michal Belda, (Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic)
2
2 Contents 1. Sensitivity test of radiation and convection model parameterization 2. Evaluation of model simulations at mother domain, at sub- domain with one-way nesting procedure and at sub-domain without nesting 3. Comparison of hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic WRF version at the sub-domain with nesting procedure
3
3 Contents 1. Sensitivity test of radiation and convection model parameterization 2. Evaluation of model simulations at mother domain, at sub- domain with one-way nesting procedure and at sub-domain without nesting 3. Comparison of hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic WRF version at the sub-domain with nesting procedure
4
4 WRF (v. 3.3) model configuration Domain: 25 km resolution, center point 50°N,13°E, 190 x 206 gridpoints Input data: ERA-40, 0.5° resolution Validation: E-OBS reference data, 0.25° resolution Model setting: ptop = 5000 Pa, 28 vertical levels, time step 200 s, recommended WRF setting for RCM: PBL – YSU scheme, Noah Land Surface Model, surface layer – MM5 scheme, microphysics – WRF single moment 6 class Tested schemes of radiation transfer: RRTM (LW), Goddard (SW), CAM (LW+SW, recommended) Tested schemes of convection: Kain-Fritsch (recommended), Grell-Devenyi, Tiedtke
5
5 Parameterization test, full-area averages for years 1991– 2000 (WRF – E-OBS 5.0) Chosen combination – RRTM+Goddard (rad.) +Tiedtke (con.)
6
6 Contents 1. Sensitivity test of radiation and convection model parameterization 2. Evaluation of model simulations at mother domain, at sub-domain with one-way nesting procedure and at sub-domain without nesting 3. Comparison of hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic WRF version at the sub-domain with nesting procedure
7
7 Nested domain configuration Domain: 6.25 km resolution, 181 x 121 grid points (white rectangle ) Driving data: 25 km WRF simulation (nesting procedure), ERA-40 (without nesting) Time interval 1961–1970, 1960 spin-up Parameterization: RRTM+Goddard (radiation), Tiedtke (convection)
8
8 Comparison of simulations on sub-domain Temp., rainfall (sub-domain area averages)
9
9 Comparison of simulations on sub-domain Temp., rainfall (spatial distribution) 6.25 km nested simulation 6.25 km direct simulation T2 MEAN RAINFALL DJF MAM JJA SON
10
10 Contents 1. Sensitivity test of radiation and convection model parameterization 2. Evaluation of model simulations at mother domain, at sub- domain with one-way nesting procedure and at subdomain without nesting 3. Comparison of hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic WRF version at the sub-domain with nesting procedure
11
11 Comparison of hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic WRF Temp., rainfall (sub-domain area averages)
12
12 Comparison of hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic WRF T2 mean, rainfall (spatial distribution) T2 MEAN RAINFALL hydrostatic versionnon-hydrostatic version DJF MAM JJA SON
13
13 Downward SW radiation – model outputs vs. GEBA station data
14
14 Temporal distribution of precipitation Number of days > 0.1 mm Number of days > 10 mm hydrostatic versionnon-hydrostatic version DJF MAM JJA SON
15
15 Conclusions Combination of schemes RRTM (LW radiation), Goddard (SW radiation) and Tiedtke (convection) makes the best results Simulation on sub-domain performed directly from ERA-40 makes less temperature bias, precipitation impacted by prevailing flow Non-hydrostatic version makes a little bit better results than hydrostatic on 6.25 km, but the difference is much less than general biases
16
16 Acknowledges NCAR/UCAR – WRF ARW model ECMWF – ERA-40 data – model boundary conditions ECA&D – E-OBS reference data ETH Zurich – GEBA (Global Energy Balance Archive) – radiation station data GAUK (Grant Agency of Charles University) – financial support
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.