the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluation of WRF 4.5.1 surface layer scheme representation of temperature inversions over boreal forests
Abstract. In this study, the Noah Land Surface Model used in conjunction with the Mellor-Janjić-Yamada surface layer scheme (hereafter, Noah-MYJ) and the Noah MultiPhysics scheme (Noah-MP) from the WRF 4.5.1 meso-scale model are evaluated with regards to their performance in reproducing positive temperature gradients over forested areas in the Arctic winter. First, simplified versions of the WRF schemes, recoded in Python, are compared with conceptual models of the surface layer in order to gain insight into the dependence of the temperature gradient on the wind speed at the top of the surface layer. It is shown that the WRF schemes place strong limits on the turbulent collapse, leading to lower surface temperature gradient at low wind speeds than in the conceptual models. We implemented modifications to the WRF schemes to correct this effect. The original and modified versions of Noah-MYJ and Noah-MP are then evaluated compared to long-term measurements at the Ameriflux Poker Flats Research Range, a forest site in Interior Alaska. Noah-MP is found to perform better than Noah-MYJ because the former is a 2-layer model which explicitly takes into account the effect of the forest canopy. Indeed a non-negligible temperature gradient is maintained below the canopy at high wind speeds, leading to overall larger gradients than in the absence of vegetation. Furthermore, the modified versions are found to perform better than the original versions of each scheme because they better reproduce strong temperature gradients at low wind speeds.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2554 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2554 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2152', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Oct 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2152/egusphere-2023-2152-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jean-Christophe Raut, 30 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2152/egusphere-2023-2152-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jean-Christophe Raut, 30 Jan 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2152', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Oct 2023
General comments:
The authors took two surface layer schemes (Noah-MYJ and Noah-MP) out of WRF, and simplified them as stand-alone modules to evaluate their performance for temperature inversions over forests in the Arctic winter. Additionally, a conceptual model was also developed to investigate the impact of individual variables. To correct the limits of the WRF schemes on turbulent collapse, some modifications were inserted. The research provides some ideas on improving the surface layer models, especially under stable conditions. However, I found the structure of the manuscript is not well organized. The interpretation of the results is limited too. So, I would like to recommend a major revision before it can be published in this journal.
Major comments:
- The title is misleading, since you didn’t evaluate the surface layer schemes inside WRF. Especially, what’s the difference of the surface layer models in the version 4.5.1 compared to the previous versions?
- In section 2 the authors first introduce the conceptual model, then the two schemes from WRF, and then in section 3 the modified schemes are described after the measurements. I feel this organization is not straightforward and confusing. The connection between the conceptual model and WRF schemes is not clear.
- The validation of the models (Figure 7) is based on a lot of input parameters regarded as constant values; however, these parameters should change with time. It’s difficult to draw the conclusion that the modifications improve the model performance. This part should be expanded to gain more confidence.
- The investigations on the model results are limited, especially the last part with all measurements input. The discussion should be extended.
Minor comments:
- The full name of WRF should be mentioned somewhere.
- Line 56: LMDZ model should be explained.
- The language needs to be improved. There are some spelling and grammar mistakes. For example, line 227&404: a comma should be inserted before which. Line 401 is confusing.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2152-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jean-Christophe Raut, 30 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2152/egusphere-2023-2152-AC2-supplement.pdf
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2152', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Oct 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2152/egusphere-2023-2152-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jean-Christophe Raut, 30 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2152/egusphere-2023-2152-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jean-Christophe Raut, 30 Jan 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2152', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Oct 2023
General comments:
The authors took two surface layer schemes (Noah-MYJ and Noah-MP) out of WRF, and simplified them as stand-alone modules to evaluate their performance for temperature inversions over forests in the Arctic winter. Additionally, a conceptual model was also developed to investigate the impact of individual variables. To correct the limits of the WRF schemes on turbulent collapse, some modifications were inserted. The research provides some ideas on improving the surface layer models, especially under stable conditions. However, I found the structure of the manuscript is not well organized. The interpretation of the results is limited too. So, I would like to recommend a major revision before it can be published in this journal.
Major comments:
- The title is misleading, since you didn’t evaluate the surface layer schemes inside WRF. Especially, what’s the difference of the surface layer models in the version 4.5.1 compared to the previous versions?
- In section 2 the authors first introduce the conceptual model, then the two schemes from WRF, and then in section 3 the modified schemes are described after the measurements. I feel this organization is not straightforward and confusing. The connection between the conceptual model and WRF schemes is not clear.
- The validation of the models (Figure 7) is based on a lot of input parameters regarded as constant values; however, these parameters should change with time. It’s difficult to draw the conclusion that the modifications improve the model performance. This part should be expanded to gain more confidence.
- The investigations on the model results are limited, especially the last part with all measurements input. The discussion should be extended.
Minor comments:
- The full name of WRF should be mentioned somewhere.
- Line 56: LMDZ model should be explained.
- The language needs to be improved. There are some spelling and grammar mistakes. For example, line 227&404: a comma should be inserted before which. Line 401 is confusing.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2152-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jean-Christophe Raut, 30 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2152/egusphere-2023-2152-AC2-supplement.pdf
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
323 | 106 | 27 | 456 | 16 | 15 |
- HTML: 323
- PDF: 106
- XML: 27
- Total: 456
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Julia Maillard
Jean-Christophe Raut
François Ravetta
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2554 KB) - Metadata XML