2013
DOI: 10.1175/waf-d-12-00103.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Verification of Convection-Allowing WRF Model Forecasts of the Planetary Boundary Layer Using Sounding Observations

Abstract: This study evaluates forecasts of thermodynamic variables from five convection-allowing configurations of the Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) with the Advanced Research core (WRF-ARW). The forecasts vary only in their planetary boundary layer (PBL) scheme, including three “local” schemes [Mellor–Yamada–Janjić (MYJ), quasi-normal scale elimination (QNSE), and Mellor–Yamada–Nakanishi–Niino (MYNN)] and two schemes that include “nonlocal” mixing [the asymmetric cloud model version 2 (ACM2) and the Yon… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

16
140
3

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 155 publications
(159 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
16
140
3
Order By: Relevance
“…The YSU scheme is typically regarded as one of the better overall performers in intercomparison studies [Hu et al, 2010;Gibbs et al, 2011;Xie et al, 2012;Coniglio et al, 2013;Cohen et al, 2015], though we have done additional testing using five alternative schemes to evaluate how sensitive our results are to a given boundary layer formulation. While there is variability in the magnitude of moisture and temperature change as well as boundary layer height in each set of simulations, the day 1 processes that increase moisture flux into the lower free troposphere appear consistent across most schemes with the exception of MYJ (Fig.…”
Section: Sensitivity To Boundary Layer Schemementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The YSU scheme is typically regarded as one of the better overall performers in intercomparison studies [Hu et al, 2010;Gibbs et al, 2011;Xie et al, 2012;Coniglio et al, 2013;Cohen et al, 2015], though we have done additional testing using five alternative schemes to evaluate how sensitive our results are to a given boundary layer formulation. While there is variability in the magnitude of moisture and temperature change as well as boundary layer height in each set of simulations, the day 1 processes that increase moisture flux into the lower free troposphere appear consistent across most schemes with the exception of MYJ (Fig.…”
Section: Sensitivity To Boundary Layer Schemementioning
confidence: 99%
“…While there is variability in the magnitude of moisture and temperature change as well as boundary layer height in each set of simulations, the day 1 processes that increase moisture flux into the lower free troposphere appear consistent across most schemes with the exception of MYJ (Fig. S7), which lacks a vertical moisture dipole, possibly because it under-predicts the boundary layer height and entrainment at the boundary layer top [e.g., Hu et al, 2010;Coniglio et al, 2013]. Over a 10-day timescale, all schemes produce a similar drying region along the northeastern coast of tropical South America, though the magnitude of increase over the Andes and western tropical South America varies (Fig.…”
Section: Sensitivity To Boundary Layer Schemementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The PBL representation is a determinant factor in accurately simulating mesoscale weather phenomena owing to the critical role that these fluxes exert in the unfolding of severe phenomena. The choice of a PBL scheme can substantially affect temperature and moisture profiles in the lower troposphere and the effects of turbulence in daytime convective conditions (Hu et al 2010;Coniglio et al 2013).…”
Section: B Mps Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The PBL height has a rather large influence on boundary layer development and has received some attention (e.g. Gryning 11 and Coniglio et al 12 ). To the author's knowledge, no relevant work has focused on model validation of static stability across the PBL top and model performance in reproducing the inversion sharpness at the PBL top.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%