Jonathan Pleim1, Robert Gilliam1, and Aijun Xiu2

1Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division, NOAA, Research Triangle Park, NC (In partnership with the U.S. EPA)2Institute for the Environment, UNC-Chapel Hill

Evaluation of Pleim-Xiu Land Surface Model and Asymmetric Convective

Model in WRF

Outline• Addition of new physics to WRF

Asymmetric Convective Model – version 2 (ACM2)

Pleim-Xiu Land Surface Model (PX-LSM)

• Preliminary evaluation of WRF-PX-ACM2 and WRF-NOAH-YSU Surface observations and analyses PBL heights derived from radar wind

profilers

New Physics• ACM2

Combined non-local and local closure Similar to eddy diffusion w/ counter-gradient adjustment (e.g. MRF,

YSU) but better for chemistry Produces realistic profiles in convective boundary layers (CBL) and

accurate PBL heights (Pleim 2007 parts 1&2 JAMC) In CMAQ, MM5, and WRF

• PX LSM Three pathways for evaporation

• Ground evaporation - f(sfc soil moisture)• Wet canopies - f(cwc)• Evapotranspiration - f(stomatal resistance)

Detailed Vegetation and Soil Data• USGS and STATSGO (1 km) soon NLCD-30m• Grid cell aggregate parameters from fractional area LU and soil type data.

Indirect Soil Moisture Nudging• Model-obs surface temperature and humidity

WRF PBL/Surface Fluxes

• PBL/Surface model components are in three separate, but interdependent modules in WRF

1. Land surface model – computes soil moisture and temperature and moisture fluxes from ground, wet leaves, evapotranspiration. Added PX LSM

2. Surface layer – Solves flux-profile relationships. Outputs: L, u*, Ra. Added Pleim (2006) surface layer scheme

3. PBL – Computes subgrid turbulent vertical transport. Added ACM2

Evaluation of WRF-PX-ACM2 and WRF-NOAH-YSU

• Grid configuration: Horizontal grid resolution = 12 km 34 vertical layer

• Physics: RRTM long wave radiation Dudhia SW WSM6 microphysics KF2 convective cloud scheme

• FDDA 3-D analysis nudging for winds (all levels), T, qv

(above PBL only) Indirect soil moisture nudging using NCEP surface

analysis of T and RH for PX LSM

2006 WRF 12km T-2m Stats

Temperature Error

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

1-Aug

2-Aug

3-Aug

4-Aug

5-Aug

6-Aug

7-Aug

8-Aug

9-Aug

10-A

ug

11-A

ug

12-A

ug

13-A

ug

14-A

ug

15-A

ug

16-A

ug

17-A

ug

18-A

ug

19-A

ug

20-A

ug

21-A

ug

22-A

ug

23-A

ug

24-A

ug

25-A

ug

26-A

ug

27-A

ug

28-A

ug

29-A

ug

30-A

ug

Day

RM

SE

/MA

E (

K)

Analysis (RMSE)

Analysis (MAE)

WRF PX ACM

WRF PX ACM

WRF NOAH YSU

WRF NOAH YSU

Temperature BIAS

-1

-0.75

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

1-Aug

2-Aug

3-Aug

4-Aug

5-Aug

6-Aug

7-Aug

8-Aug

9-Aug

10-A

ug

11-A

ug

12-A

ug

13-A

ug

14-A

ug

15-A

ug

16-A

ug

17-A

ug

18-A

ug

19-A

ug

20-A

ug

21-A

ug

22-A

ug

23-A

ug

24-A

ug

25-A

ug

26-A

ug

27-A

ug

28-A

ug

29-A

ug

30-A

ug

Day

BIA

S (

K)

Analysis (RMSE)

WRF PX ACM

WRF NOAH YSU

WRF PX 2-m Temperature Statistics

WRF NOAH 2-m Temperature Statistics

T-2m, WRF PX – Analysis, August 2006

T-2m, WRF NOAH – Analysis, August 2006

WRF Analysis 2-m Temperature Statistics

Mixing Ratio Error

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

1-Aug

2-Aug

3-Aug

4-Aug

5-Aug

6-Aug

7-Aug

8-Aug

9-Aug

10-A

ug

11-A

ug

12-A

ug

13-A

ug

14-A

ug

15-A

ug

16-A

ug

17-A

ug

18-A

ug

19-A

ug

20-A

ug

21-A

ug

22-A

ug

23-A

ug

24-A

ug

25-A

ug

26-A

ug

27-A

ug

28-A

ug

29-A

ug

30-A

ug

Day

RM

SE

/MA

E (

g/k

g)

Analysis (RMSE)

Analysis (MAE)

WRF PX ACM

WRF PX ACM

WRF NOAH YSU

WRF NOAH YSU

Mixing Ratio BIAS

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

1-Aug

2-Aug

3-Aug

4-Aug

5-Aug

6-Aug

7-Aug

8-Aug

9-Aug

10-A

ug

11-A

ug

12-A

ug

13-A

ug

14-A

ug

15-A

ug

16-A

ug

17-A

ug

18-A

ug

19-A

ug

20-A

ug

21-A

ug

22-A

ug

23-A

ug

24-A

ug

25-A

ug

26-A

ug

27-A

ug

28-A

ug

29-A

ug

30-A

ug

Day

BIA

S (

g/k

g)

Analysis (RMSE)

WRF PX ACM

WRF NOAH YSU

WRF PX 2-m MixR Statistics

WRF NOAH 2-m MixR Statistics

Wind Speed Error

0.75

1

1.25

1.5

1.75

1-Aug

2-Aug

3-Aug

4-Aug

5-Aug

6-Aug

7-Aug

8-Aug

9-Aug

10-A

ug

11-A

ug

12-A

ug

13-A

ug

14-A

ug

15-A

ug

16-A

ug

17-A

ug

18-A

ug

19-A

ug

20-A

ug

21-A

ug

22-A

ug

23-A

ug

24-A

ug

25-A

ug

26-A

ug

27-A

ug

28-A

ug

29-A

ug

30-A

ug

Day

RM

SE

/MA

E (

m/s

)

WRF PX ACM

WRF PX ACM

WRF NOAH YSU

WRF NOAH YSU

Wind Speed BIAS

-0.75

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1-Aug

2-Aug

3-Aug

4-Aug

5-Aug

6-Aug

7-Aug

8-Aug

9-Aug

10-A

ug

11-A

ug

12-A

ug

13-A

ug

14-A

ug

15-A

ug

16-A

ug

17-A

ug

18-A

ug

19-A

ug

20-A

ug

21-A

ug

22-A

ug

23-A

ug

24-A

ug

25-A

ug

26-A

ug

27-A

ug

28-A

ug

29-A

ug

30-A

ug

Day

BIA

S (

m/s

)

WRF PX ACM

WRF NOAH YSU

PBL Heights from TexAQS II

• PBL heights derived from 10 radar wind profilers in Texas area by Jim Wilczak and Laura Bianco NOAA/ESRL

• Observations and models averaged by hour of the day for August 1-31, 2006

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

8 10 12 14 16 18 20

mdySTATS

OBSNOAHYSUPXACM2

Hour (LT)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

10 12 14 16 18 20

aclSTATS

OBSNOAHYSUPXACM2

Hour (LT)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

bhmSTATS

OBSNOAHYSUPXACM2

Hour (LT)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

lvwSTATS

OBS

NOAHYSU

PXACM2

Hour (LT)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

8 10 12 14 16 18 20

lptSTATS

OBSNOAHYSUPXACM2

Hour (LT)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

8 10 12 14 16 18 20

cleSTATS

OBS

NOAHYSU

PXACM2

Hour (LT)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

bpaSTATS

OBS

NOAHYSU

PXACM2

Hour (LT)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

hveSTATS

OBS

NOAHYSU

PXACM2

Hour (LT)

Summary• WRF-PX-ACM2 and WRF-NOAH-YSU show

similar performance for surface statistics Less humidity bias for PX Low wind speed bias less for PX T-2m error and bias better for PX in eastern portion

of domain but worse in western plains

• Preliminary PBL height analysis shows that PX-ACM2 has generally less high bias than NOAH-YSU

Next

• Finish the study outlined in the abstract Run WRF-PX-MYJ Run CMAQ-ACM2 using met from

WRF-PX-ACM2 Run CMAQ-MYJ using met from

WRF-PX-MYJ Evaluate both met/aq combinations

against TexAQSII Field experiment

Further WRF Development

• Implement snow model in PX LSM

• Implement new, high resolution, more accurate 2002 National Land Cover Data Based on 30 m Landsat-7 ETM

• WRF-CMAQ 2-way “On-line” system under development Beta release September 2008

Acknowledgements

Tanya Otte (ASMD), Lara Reynolds (CSC)

Disclaimer - The research presented here was performed under the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and under agreement number DW 13921548. This work constitutes a contribution to the NOAA Air Quality Program. Although it has been reviewed by EPA and NOAA and approved for publication, it does not necessarily reflect their policies or views.