2002 MM5 Modeling

Information about 2002 MM5 Modeling

Published on February 14, 2008

Author: Candelora

Source: authorstream.com

Content

2002 MM5 36 km Model Evaluation:  2002 MM5 36 km Model Evaluation Ralph Morris, Sue Kemball-Cook, Yiqin Jia and Chris Emery ENVIRON International Corporation Novato, CA ([email protected]) Zion Wang UCR CE-CERT WRAP Regional Modeling Center Workshop Tempe, Arizona January 28-29, 2004 2002 36 km MM5 Evaluation:  2002 36 km MM5 Evaluation Use existing IA/WI 2002 36 km MM5 Set Up National RPO 36 km Grid Lambert Conformal Projection 164 x 128 x 34 Invoke Reisner2 w/ Mixed Ice Physics Evaluation Methodology Synoptic Evaluation Statistical Evaluation using METSTAT and surface data WS, WD, T, RH Evaluation against upper-air met obs METSTAT Evaluation Package:  METSTAT Evaluation Package Average observed and predicted Absolute Bias and Error RMSE Index of Agreement (IOA) Daily and, where appropriate, Hourly Evaluation Statistical Performance Benchmarks Based on an analysis of > 30 MM5 and RAMS runs Not meant as a pass/fail test, but to put modeling results in the proper perspective Subdomains for Model Evaluation:  Subdomains for Model Evaluation 1 = Pacific NW 2 = SW 3 = North 4 = Desert SW 5 = CenrapN 6 = CenrapS 7 = Great Lakes 8 = Ohio Valley 9 = SE 10 = NE 11 = MidAtlantic Datasets for Met Evaluation:  Datasets for Met Evaluation NCAR dataset ds472 airport surface met observations Twice-Daily Upper-Air Profile Obs (~120 in US) Temperature Moisture Example MM5 Performance Plots:  Example MM5 Performance Plots Scatter plots of performance metrics Include box for benchmark Include historical MM5/RAMS simulation results WS RMSE vs. WD Gross Error Temperature Bias vs. Temperature Error Humidity Bias vs. Humidity Error Analysis by Month Examples for January March July January 2002 36 km MM5 Wind Performance:  January 2002 36 km MM5 Wind Performance Performance Issues in WRAP Subdomains Wind Performance in North Subdomain:  Wind Performance in North Subdomain Wind Speed Underprediction Bias  Wind Performance SW Region Jan 2002:  Wind Performance SW Region Jan 2002 Positive Wind Direction Bias  January 2002 36 km MM5 Temp Performance:  January 2002 36 km MM5 Temp Performance Pacific NW has a cold temperature bias Temp Performance, Pacific NW, Jan 2002:  Temp Performance, Pacific NW, Jan 2002 Cold bias due to underestimate daily max temp and warmer episode periods (e.g., 1/7, 1/21 & 1/25) January 2002 36 km MM5 Humidity Performance:  January 2002 36 km MM5 Humidity Performance March 2002 36 km MM5 Wind Performance:  March 2002 36 km MM5 Wind Performance Same WRAP subdomains w/ performance issues Wind Performance PacificNW Region Mar 2002:  Wind Performance PacificNW Region Mar 2002 March 2002 36 km MM5 Temp Performance:  March 2002 36 km MM5 Temp Performance PacificNW and DesertSW lie outside of benchmarks March 2002 36 km MM5 Humidity Performance:  March 2002 36 km MM5 Humidity Performance Overall, WRAP Subdomains indicate a wet cold bias July 2002 36 km MM5 Wind Performance:  July 2002 36 km MM5 Wind Performance Many subdomains outside of benchmarks DesertSW, North & SW WS too low North, PacNW, & DesertSW pos bias in WD Wind Performance DesertSW July 2002:  Wind Performance DesertSW July 2002 Severe Wind Speed Undeprediction Bias  Slight Positive Wind Direction Bias  July 2002 36 km MM5 Temp Performance:  July 2002 36 km MM5 Temp Performance WRAP Subdomains cold bias in July Temp Performance DesertSW July 2002:  Temp Performance DesertSW July 2002 Cold temperature bias, especially in afternoons Afternoon maximum temperature underestimated 3-6 degrees C throughout July 2002 Temp Performance Pacific NW July 2002:  Temp Performance Pacific NW July 2002 2002 36 km MM5 Humidity Performance:  2002 36 km MM5 Humidity Performance Reason for large pos humidity bias in DesertSW subdomain unclear Humidity Performance DesertSW July 2002:  Humidity Performance DesertSW July 2002 Severe Humidity Underestimation Bias MM5 overstates Summer Monsoon in 2002 Desert Southwest Slide24:  Humidity Performance Pacific NW July 2002 Months/Subdomains MM5 Exceed Benchmarks:  Months/Subdomains MM5 Exceed Benchmarks Summary 2002 MM5 Model Performance:  Summary 2002 MM5 Model Performance MM5 does a better job in Central and Eastern US General cool moist bias in Western US Difficulty with Western US Orography w/ 36 km Grid? May get better performance with higher resolution Pleim-Xiu scheme optimized more for eastern US? More optimization needed for desert and rocky ground? MM5 performs better in winter than in summer In summer forcing from mid-latitude weather systems is weaker with diurnal cycle of solar radiation being the main driver Summary 2002 MM5 Model Performance:  Summary 2002 MM5 Model Performance Western US temperature diurnal cycle amplitude is underestimated in summer Occurs in tandem with too wet surface humidity At least for January and July 2002, Subdomains that fail to meet wind performance benchmarks generally have a low bias in the wind speeds Most statistical measures within benchmarks of past applications In Desert SW, temperature underestimation and humidity overestimation bias suggest MM5 overstates summer monsoon effects Comparisons of Upper-Air Soundings:  Comparisons of Upper-Air Soundings Model able to simulate temperature profile more accurately than dew point profile that is smoother than observed Partly due to coarse resolution? MM5 has more difficulty predicting temp/dew point in PBL than above PBL Not surprisingly given nudging approach Model performs better at 00Z (4pm PST) than 12Z (4am PST) MM5 easier time simulating the fully developed convective than nocturnal boundary layer MM5 frequently does not match surface pressure May be resolution issue MM5 overestimate how close lower troposphere is to saturation Overstate cloudiness Example of MM5 modeled smoother dew point profiles than observed:  Example of MM5 modeled smoother dew point profiles than observed Midland AFB TX MM5 = Red Obs = Black January 7, 2002 12Z (6am LST) Shallow Nocturnal Inversion Not Captured by MM5 Example of better MM5 performance above than within the PBL:  Example of better MM5 performance above than within the PBL North Platte, NB January 7, 2002 12Z (6am LST) Nocturnal Inversion Not Captured MM5 = Red Obs = Black Temperature on Right Dew Point on Left Example of better MM5 performance at 00Z (left) than 12Z (right) Spokane, WA:  Example of better MM5 performance at 00Z (left) than 12Z (right) Spokane, WA 4pm LST 4am LST Example of upper-air positive WD an low WS bias (as seen in METSTAT surface analysis):  Example of upper-air positive WD an low WS bias (as seen in METSTAT surface analysis) Oakland, CA January 7, 2002 12Z (4am LST) Red MM5 Flags stronger easterly wind component and less barbs than black observed flags Example of MM5 overstatement of Saturation Level than Observed:  Example of MM5 overstatement of Saturation Level than Observed Key West, FL January 7, 2002 12Z (8am LST) Near surface MM5 temperature and dew point come together indicating saturation, whereas observed values stay apart Slide34:  Spatial Distribution of Upper-Air Met Fields 500 mb Heights Observed Reasonable agreement not surprising given nudging above PBL Predicted January 4, 2002 @ 00Z Slide35:  Spatial Distribution of Upper-Air Met Fields 500 mb Heights Observed Reasonable agreement not surprising given nudging above PBL Predicted July 2, 2002 @ 00Z Slide36:  Comparison of GOES Visible Satellite Image and MM5 estimated low cloud fractions on July 21, 2002 18Z Slide37:  Comparison of GOES Infrared Satellite Image and MM5 estimated middle and high cloud fractions on July 21, 2002 18Z Evaluation of the 2002 MM5 36 km Simulation – Preliminary Conclusions:  Evaluation of the 2002 MM5 36 km Simulation – Preliminary Conclusions Surface temperature and humidity performance falls within benchmarks for much of the year and most subdomains Model has a marked cold wet bias, especially in west Surface winds are less accurate and fail to meet benchmarks for entire year for some Subdomains PacificNW, North and DesertSW Low WS and positive WD bias also reflected in upper-air evaluation Orographic effects may not be simulated correctly using 36 km grid Pleim-Xiu may not be optimized for drier conditions and different land use categories in western US Evaluation of the 2002 MM5 36 km Simulation – Preliminary Conclusions:  Evaluation of the 2002 MM5 36 km Simulation – Preliminary Conclusions MM5 performs better in winter than in summer Weaker large-scale forcing in summer Model fails to capture daily maximum temperature May be related to wet bias MM5 has difficulty in getting the PBL structure right, especially the nocturnal PBL height May be important for AQ modeling Dew point performance issues raise questions on whether clouds will be formed at right place and time Affect solar radiation and aqueous-phase chemistry Preliminary Recommendations 2002 MM5 Modeling for WRAP:  Preliminary Recommendations 2002 MM5 Modeling for WRAP Run MM5 PX for July and January 2002 using 12 km grid to determine whether higher resolution improves model performance If performance issues persist, may want to consider sensitivity tests LSM Scheme PBL Scheme Nudging Data and Assumptions Other

Related presentations


Other presentations created by Candelora

inner planets
24. 01. 2008
0 views

inner planets

ir solid laser
11. 01. 2008
0 views

ir solid laser

Laboratories sample handling
25. 02. 2008
0 views

Laboratories sample handling

climate dr mcdougal
09. 01. 2008
0 views

climate dr mcdougal

Helen on 86th Street
10. 01. 2008
0 views

Helen on 86th Street

Bio Ceramics 61 69
11. 01. 2008
0 views

Bio Ceramics 61 69

Regression1
13. 01. 2008
0 views

Regression1

Lockemann
14. 01. 2008
0 views

Lockemann

ln EPSDT baby care
15. 01. 2008
0 views

ln EPSDT baby care

wspa07 17
15. 01. 2008
0 views

wspa07 17

saisharnam
16. 01. 2008
0 views

saisharnam

poster Smith
20. 01. 2008
0 views

poster Smith

TCP4eCH01CRS pg
22. 01. 2008
0 views

TCP4eCH01CRS pg

Basics of Carbon Credits 070621
22. 01. 2008
0 views

Basics of Carbon Credits 070621

chap 17 1
22. 01. 2008
0 views

chap 17 1

Oil Tanker Outlook
23. 01. 2008
0 views

Oil Tanker Outlook

hinduism beliefs
04. 02. 2008
0 views

hinduism beliefs

arvind singhal
04. 02. 2008
0 views

arvind singhal

aaspart2
23. 01. 2008
0 views

aaspart2

PapsatSlideShow
11. 02. 2008
0 views

PapsatSlideShow

6 1 Passive Energy
17. 01. 2008
0 views

6 1 Passive Energy

f06 goals
25. 01. 2008
0 views

f06 goals

RAC BBQ TRENDS
11. 01. 2008
0 views

RAC BBQ TRENDS

JINI
29. 01. 2008
0 views

JINI

NCAR2005 UTLAND
22. 01. 2008
0 views

NCAR2005 UTLAND

motor vehicle safety
31. 01. 2008
0 views

motor vehicle safety

jsp
06. 02. 2008
0 views

jsp

popcorn 3
07. 02. 2008
0 views

popcorn 3

tp NESHAP PortlandCement
13. 02. 2008
0 views

tp NESHAP PortlandCement

shah WiOpt2005
05. 02. 2008
0 views

shah WiOpt2005

MBIII Water Column
12. 01. 2008
0 views

MBIII Water Column

IndiaChina
07. 02. 2008
0 views

IndiaChina

AHsummary
27. 02. 2008
0 views

AHsummary

hubble
03. 03. 2008
0 views

hubble

Ch21 Temporal Ergo
05. 03. 2008
0 views

Ch21 Temporal Ergo

ESYS150 06 lect7
12. 03. 2008
0 views

ESYS150 06 lect7

BrazilOutsourcing
14. 03. 2008
0 views

BrazilOutsourcing

AF no vids
23. 01. 2008
0 views

AF no vids

SRRC Acker Presenation
19. 03. 2008
0 views

SRRC Acker Presenation

powerpointtemplate1
24. 03. 2008
0 views

powerpointtemplate1

cn159 Mas Coma
02. 04. 2008
0 views

cn159 Mas Coma

Becky Brubaker
21. 01. 2008
0 views

Becky Brubaker

18. 04. 2008
0 views

Bartlett Hatchery Reform
22. 04. 2008
0 views

Bartlett Hatchery Reform

accelarator
24. 04. 2008
0 views

accelarator

Saner
07. 05. 2008
0 views

Saner

north vs south
08. 05. 2008
0 views

north vs south

London David Rowe TFL
05. 02. 2008
0 views

London David Rowe TFL

vts 2007
10. 01. 2008
0 views

vts 2007

RichVizCommunication InTime
02. 05. 2008
0 views

RichVizCommunication InTime

garces montserrat
18. 01. 2008
0 views

garces montserrat

Cosmos and Contact
28. 01. 2008
0 views

Cosmos and Contact

Grammar and usage
28. 01. 2008
0 views

Grammar and usage

WQ08 with answers
07. 04. 2008
0 views

WQ08 with answers

MiniMedical School
15. 01. 2008
0 views

MiniMedical School

Fran Doran SOW
21. 01. 2008
0 views

Fran Doran SOW

chp13 ss
12. 02. 2008
0 views

chp13 ss

FGDC Wet 07 19 2005
09. 01. 2008
0 views

FGDC Wet 07 19 2005

Comm409fall2007
21. 01. 2008
0 views

Comm409fall2007

5sept03 notes
25. 01. 2008
0 views

5sept03 notes

17 IE 14March 07
04. 02. 2008
0 views

17 IE 14March 07

0607WH2Rel
10. 03. 2008
0 views

0607WH2Rel

PepTalk poste 07r
24. 01. 2008
0 views

PepTalk poste 07r

u7
14. 02. 2008
0 views

u7

ergonightmare
07. 03. 2008
0 views

ergonightmare

i5000 1r3
03. 03. 2008
0 views

i5000 1r3

Janitors Module1
18. 01. 2008
0 views

Janitors Module1

Lsn 27 SASO
16. 04. 2008
0 views

Lsn 27 SASO

outhred
15. 04. 2008
0 views

outhred

wellness bridge
13. 01. 2008
0 views

wellness bridge

dragonpp
19. 03. 2008
0 views

dragonpp

BrandBuildingAdverts ingSeminar3
10. 01. 2008
0 views

BrandBuildingAdverts ingSeminar3