the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Extending wind profile beyond the surface layer by combining physical and machine learning approaches
Abstract. Accurate estimation of the wind profile, especially in the lowest few hundred meters of the atmosphere, is of great significance for weather, climate and renewable energy. Nevertheless, the Monin–Obukhov similarity theory fails above the surface layer over the heterogeneous underlying surface, resulting in an unreliable wind profile obtained from the conventional extrapolation methods. To solve this problem, we propose a novel method that combines the power law method (PLM) with the random forest (RF) algorithm to extend wind profiles beyond the surface layer, called the Phy-RF method. The underlying principle is to treat the wind profile as a power law distribution in the vertical direction, in which the power law exponent (α) is determined by the Phy-RF model. First, the Phy-RF model is constructed based on the atmosphere sounding data at 119 radiosonde (RS) stations across China and in conjunction with other data such as surface wind speed, land cover type, surface roughness, friction velocity, geographical location, and meteorological parameters from June 2020 to May 2021. Afterwards, the performance of the Phy-RF, PLM and RF methods over China are evaluated by comparing them with RS observations. Overall, the wind speed at 100 m of the Phy-RF model exhibits high consistency with RS measurements, with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.93 and a root mean squared error (RMSE) of 0.92 m s−1. By contrast, the R and RMSE of wind speed results from PLM (RF) method are 0.87 (0.91) and 1.37 (1.04) m s−1, respectively. This indicates that the estimates from the Phy-RF method are much closer to observations than those from the PLM and RF methods. Moreover, the RMSE of the wind profiles estimated by the Phy-RF model is relatively larger at highlands, while is small in plains. The result indicates that the performance of the Phy-RF model is affected by the terrain factor. Finally, the Phy-RF model is applied to three atmospheric radiation measurement sites for independent validation, and the wind profiles estimated by the Phy-RF model are found consistent with the Doppler Lidar observations. This confirms that the Phy-RF model has good applicability. These findings have great implications for the weather, climate and renewable energy.
-
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
(2776 KB)
-
Supplement
(2040 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2776 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2040 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2727', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Jan 2024
The paper introduces the Phy-RF model, an innovative approach combining physical wind profile models with machine learning to extend wind profile estimations beyond the surface layer. Through comprehensive analysis and validation, the study demonstrates that the Phy-RF model offers a more accurate estimation of wind speeds at 100 meters, outperforming both the traditional power law method (PLM) and random forest (RF) machine learning algorithm alone. In general, this paper is well written. I recommend the publication of this manuscript, while I have some comments below for the authors to address.
Specific comments:
1. The paper compares the seasonal mean of ERA-5 and Phy-RF. Â It could also benefit from a direct comparison between the Phy-RF model outputs and ERA-5 wind speed data at 100 meters using scatter plots. Since the model uses ERA-5 as the input, such a comparison would be beneficial for evaluating the Phy-RF model's performance.
2. While the study incorporates data from several ARM sites, there appears to be insufficient evaluation using these datasets. Since averaged profiles may not capture the full extent of discrepancies between the Phy-RF model estimates and observations, relying on mean profiles from lidar cannot accurately represent accuracy.
3. More detailed statistical analysis, such as examining the mean absolute error (MAE), could enhance our understanding of the model's performance. I suggest including the MAE to evaluate the differences between Phy-RF, ERA-5, and Lidar.
4. I noticed there are notable discrepancies in the mean profiles of Phy-RF and Lidar over the SGP. What factors lead to such biases? Meanwhile, Are such biases also included in the ERA-5?
5. The paper may include its discussion on the limitations of the Phy-RF model, particularly how it performs under extreme events.
6. Despite a worse performance compared to Phy-RF, the traditional PLM also seems good (Figure 7). It would be beneficial to discuss more clearly the potential applications and advantages of the Phy-RF approach, particularly in scenarios where the PLM and ERA-5 may fall short.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2727-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Boming Liu, 05 Feb 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2727', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Jan 2024
Please find my comments in the PDF supplement.
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Boming Liu, 05 Feb 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2727', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Jan 2024
The paper introduces the Phy-RF model, an innovative approach combining physical wind profile models with machine learning to extend wind profile estimations beyond the surface layer. Through comprehensive analysis and validation, the study demonstrates that the Phy-RF model offers a more accurate estimation of wind speeds at 100 meters, outperforming both the traditional power law method (PLM) and random forest (RF) machine learning algorithm alone. In general, this paper is well written. I recommend the publication of this manuscript, while I have some comments below for the authors to address.
Specific comments:
1. The paper compares the seasonal mean of ERA-5 and Phy-RF. Â It could also benefit from a direct comparison between the Phy-RF model outputs and ERA-5 wind speed data at 100 meters using scatter plots. Since the model uses ERA-5 as the input, such a comparison would be beneficial for evaluating the Phy-RF model's performance.
2. While the study incorporates data from several ARM sites, there appears to be insufficient evaluation using these datasets. Since averaged profiles may not capture the full extent of discrepancies between the Phy-RF model estimates and observations, relying on mean profiles from lidar cannot accurately represent accuracy.
3. More detailed statistical analysis, such as examining the mean absolute error (MAE), could enhance our understanding of the model's performance. I suggest including the MAE to evaluate the differences between Phy-RF, ERA-5, and Lidar.
4. I noticed there are notable discrepancies in the mean profiles of Phy-RF and Lidar over the SGP. What factors lead to such biases? Meanwhile, Are such biases also included in the ERA-5?
5. The paper may include its discussion on the limitations of the Phy-RF model, particularly how it performs under extreme events.
6. Despite a worse performance compared to Phy-RF, the traditional PLM also seems good (Figure 7). It would be beneficial to discuss more clearly the potential applications and advantages of the Phy-RF approach, particularly in scenarios where the PLM and ERA-5 may fall short.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2727-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Boming Liu, 05 Feb 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2727', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Jan 2024
Please find my comments in the PDF supplement.
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Boming Liu, 05 Feb 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
218 | 77 | 22 | 317 | 33 | 15 | 17 |
- HTML: 218
- PDF: 77
- XML: 22
- Total: 317
- Supplement: 33
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Boming Liu
Xin Ma
Hui Li
Shikuan Jin
Yingying Ma
Wei Gong
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2776 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2040 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper