the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Recommended coupling to global meteorological fields for long-term tracer simulations with WRF-GHG
Abstract. Atmospheric transport models are often used to simulate the distribution of greenhouse gases (GHGs). This can be in the context of forward modelling of tracer transport using surface-atmosphere fluxes, or flux estimation through inverse modelling, whereby atmospheric tracer measurements are used in combination with simulated transport. In both of these contexts, transport errors can bias the results and should therefore be minimized.
Here, we analyze transport uncertainties in the commonly-used Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model coupled with the greenhouse gas module (WRF-GHG), enabling passive tracer transport simulation of CO2 and CH4. As a mesoscale numerical weather prediction model, WRF’s transport is constrained by global meteorological fields via initialization and at the lateral boundaries of the domain of interest. These global fields were generated by assimilating various meteorological data to increase the accuracy of modeled fields. However, in limited-domain models like WRF, the winds in the centre of the domain can deviate considerably from these driving fields. As the accuracy of the wind speed and direction is critical to the prediction of tracer transport, maintaining a close link to the observations across the simulation domain is desired. On the other hand, a too close link to the global meteorological fields can degrade performance at smaller spatial scales that are better represented by the mesoscale model. In this work, we evaluated the performance of strategies for keeping WRF's meteorology compatible with meteorological observations. To avoid the complexity of assimilating meteorological observations directly, two main strategies of coupling WRF-GHG with ERA5 meteorological reanalysis data were tested over a two-month-long simulation over the European domain: (a) restarting the model daily with fresh initial conditions from ERA5, and (b) nudging the atmospheric winds, temperatures and moisture to those of ERA5 continuously throughout the simulation period, using WRF's built-in four-dimensional data assimilation (FDDA) in grid-nudging mode.
Meteorological variables as well as simulated mole fractions of CO2 and CH4 were compared against observations to assess the performance of the different strategies. We also compared planetary boundary layer height (PBLH) with radiosonde-derived estimates. Either nudging or daily restarts similarly improved the meteorology and GHG transport in our simulations, with a small advantage of using both methods in combination. However, notable differences in soil moisture were found that accumulated over the course of the simulation when not using frequent restarts. The soil moisture drift had an impact on the simulated PBLH, presumably via changing the Bowen ratio. This is partially mitigated through nudging without requiring daily restarts, although not entirely alleviated. Soil moisture drift did not have a noticeable impact on GHG performance in our case, likely because it was dominated by other errors. However, since PBLH is critical for accurately simulating GHG transport, we recommend transport model setups that tie soil moisture to observations. Our method of frequently re-initializing simulations with meteorological reanalysis fields proved suitable for this purpose.
-
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
(48132 KB)
-
Supplement
(53289 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(48132 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(53289 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2839', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 May 2024
The article investigates model configuration strategies to improve the accuracy of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) transport simulations using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model coupled with the GHG module (WRF-GHG). The study focuses on minimizing transport errors by coupling WRF-GHG with ERA5 meteorological reanalysis data through two main strategies: daily model restarts and continuous grid nudging. Six experiments were constructed by applying different configurations of these strategies: NN_NR, NN_DR, GN_NR, GN_DR, GN_3km_NR, and GN_3km_DR through a two-month-long simulation over the European domain. The authors compared the model output with both meteorological and CO2/CH4 measurements and concluded that (1) both daily restarts and grid nudging improved meteorological accuracy and GHG transport, with a small advantage when both methods were combined; (2) notable differences in soil moisture were observed, which accumulated over the simulation period when not using frequent restarts. This drift in soil moisture affected the simulated planetary boundary layer height (PBLH) but did not significantly impact GHG performance; (3) Daily restarts or nudging minimized soil moisture drift, enhancing the simulation of surface temperature and humidity, and improving PBLH representation.
This work provides a strong, logical recommendation for the WRF-GHG setup and well-documents the results. I have been using this strategy for my simulations but haven’t done or seen any work illustrating the rationale behind it. The study also provides valuable insights into optimizing long-term tracer simulations with WRF-GHG. By recommending a combination of daily restarts and grid nudging, the study offers a practical solution to enhance the accuracy of atmospheric GHG transport models, contributing to better quantification of inversion. This article has done thorough work in terms of model evaluation. The method is sound, and the results and conclusions are solid. I have no concerns regarding language or grammar. I would recommend this article after the authors address my specific comments below.
Specific Comments:
- In the introduction, I noticed that no literature was cited beyond 2018. This raises a question about whether there has been no relevant work in this area over the past six years, which I found quite surprising. I recommend considering the inclusion of the following recent citations to provide a more comprehensive overview of the current state of research in this field:
Feng, Sha, Thomas Lauvaux, Kenneth J. Davis, Klaus Keller, Yu Zhou, Christopher Williams, Andrew E. Schuh, Junjie Liu, and Ian Baker. “Seasonal Characteristics of Model Uncertainties From Biogenic Fluxes, Transport, and Large-Scale Boundary Inflow in Atmospheric CO2 Simulations Over North America.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 124, no. 24 (2019): 14325–46. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031165.
Feng, Sha, Thomas Lauvaux, Klaus Keller, Kenneth J. Davis, Peter Rayner, Tomohiro Oda, and Kevin R. Gurney. “A Road Map for Improving the Treatment of Uncertainties in High-Resolution Regional Carbon Flux Inverse Estimates.” Geophysical Research Letters 46, no. 22 (2019): 13461–69. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL082987.
Gerken, Tobias, Sha Feng, Klaus Keller, Thomas Lauvaux, Joshua P. DiGangi, Yonghoon Choi, Bianca Baier, and Kenneth J. Davis. “Examining CO2 Model Observation Residuals Using ACT-America Data.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 126, no. 18 (2021): e2020JD034481. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD034481.
- I find the justification for evaluating modeled GHG against observations to be lacking. Feng et al. (2019a; 2019b) demonstrated that flux uncertainty predominantly influences model CO2 uncertainty. This likely explains why the CO2/CH4 simulations from different experiments do not exhibit as much distinction as the meteorological variables. The authors should address this issue and provide a stronger rationale for their approach.
The authors may include these two references when they explain the causes of the similar performances in terms of GHG simulations in Line 315.
- The content and significance of Figure 8 are unclear. Regardless, I observe a consistent trend in model errors across the different flights. It appears that the reanalysis data, which provide the initial and boundary conditions for WRF-GHG, dominate the model errors. The authors should clarify the information presented in Figure 8 and discuss the impact of reanalysis data on the model’s performance.
- The p-value presented in Figure 10, such as 1.24e-09, appears questionable. Could the authors clarify the number of samples used for the statistics in Figure 10? Are those r values meaningful?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2839-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', David Ho, 13 Aug 2024
We would like to thank the referee for taking the time to read through our manuscript and for the extremely positive feedback. We appreciate the effort and are convinced that the reviewer's input has enhanced the quality of the paper.
We also took the opportunity to fix a few typos we noticed in the main text. Please find the point by point response in the attachment.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2839', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Jul 2024
In this paper, the WRF model is used to simulate the transport of CO2 and CH4 for a 2-month period in 2018 at 5-km scale over Europe, with particular focus over a coal mining region of southern Poland. The authors compare the use of grid nudging and model reinitialization to improve the representation of the near-surface temperature, humidity, winds, and PBL height, and assess the implications for simulating GHGs. While somewhat similar studies have been conducted previously comparing nudging and reinitialization for simulating regional meteorology and climate, none to my knowledge have been at such high spatial resolution, nor have they focused on pollutant transport. Additionally, the linkage between soil moisture drift and PBLH errors is novel. The manuscript is well constructed and clearly written.
I recommend the paper be accepted for publication after the minor issue noted below is clarified or corrected.
Lines 271-274 say that flights suitable for model-data comparisons are denoted with asterisks in Fig. 8. However, the caption to Fig. 8 says that asterisks indicate "flights that crossed so close to nearby point sources that we cannot represent them well." It appears that the authors at some point changed whether asterisks denoted "good" vs "bad" flights for comparison against the model.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2839-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', David Ho, 13 Aug 2024
We would like to thank the referee for taking the time to read through our manuscript and for the extremely positive feedback. We appreciate the effort and are convinced that the reviewer's input has enhanced the quality of the paper.
We also took the opportunity to fix a few typos we noticed in the main text. Please find the point by point response in the attachment.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', David Ho, 13 Aug 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2839', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 May 2024
The article investigates model configuration strategies to improve the accuracy of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) transport simulations using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model coupled with the GHG module (WRF-GHG). The study focuses on minimizing transport errors by coupling WRF-GHG with ERA5 meteorological reanalysis data through two main strategies: daily model restarts and continuous grid nudging. Six experiments were constructed by applying different configurations of these strategies: NN_NR, NN_DR, GN_NR, GN_DR, GN_3km_NR, and GN_3km_DR through a two-month-long simulation over the European domain. The authors compared the model output with both meteorological and CO2/CH4 measurements and concluded that (1) both daily restarts and grid nudging improved meteorological accuracy and GHG transport, with a small advantage when both methods were combined; (2) notable differences in soil moisture were observed, which accumulated over the simulation period when not using frequent restarts. This drift in soil moisture affected the simulated planetary boundary layer height (PBLH) but did not significantly impact GHG performance; (3) Daily restarts or nudging minimized soil moisture drift, enhancing the simulation of surface temperature and humidity, and improving PBLH representation.
This work provides a strong, logical recommendation for the WRF-GHG setup and well-documents the results. I have been using this strategy for my simulations but haven’t done or seen any work illustrating the rationale behind it. The study also provides valuable insights into optimizing long-term tracer simulations with WRF-GHG. By recommending a combination of daily restarts and grid nudging, the study offers a practical solution to enhance the accuracy of atmospheric GHG transport models, contributing to better quantification of inversion. This article has done thorough work in terms of model evaluation. The method is sound, and the results and conclusions are solid. I have no concerns regarding language or grammar. I would recommend this article after the authors address my specific comments below.
Specific Comments:
- In the introduction, I noticed that no literature was cited beyond 2018. This raises a question about whether there has been no relevant work in this area over the past six years, which I found quite surprising. I recommend considering the inclusion of the following recent citations to provide a more comprehensive overview of the current state of research in this field:
Feng, Sha, Thomas Lauvaux, Kenneth J. Davis, Klaus Keller, Yu Zhou, Christopher Williams, Andrew E. Schuh, Junjie Liu, and Ian Baker. “Seasonal Characteristics of Model Uncertainties From Biogenic Fluxes, Transport, and Large-Scale Boundary Inflow in Atmospheric CO2 Simulations Over North America.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 124, no. 24 (2019): 14325–46. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031165.
Feng, Sha, Thomas Lauvaux, Klaus Keller, Kenneth J. Davis, Peter Rayner, Tomohiro Oda, and Kevin R. Gurney. “A Road Map for Improving the Treatment of Uncertainties in High-Resolution Regional Carbon Flux Inverse Estimates.” Geophysical Research Letters 46, no. 22 (2019): 13461–69. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL082987.
Gerken, Tobias, Sha Feng, Klaus Keller, Thomas Lauvaux, Joshua P. DiGangi, Yonghoon Choi, Bianca Baier, and Kenneth J. Davis. “Examining CO2 Model Observation Residuals Using ACT-America Data.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 126, no. 18 (2021): e2020JD034481. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD034481.
- I find the justification for evaluating modeled GHG against observations to be lacking. Feng et al. (2019a; 2019b) demonstrated that flux uncertainty predominantly influences model CO2 uncertainty. This likely explains why the CO2/CH4 simulations from different experiments do not exhibit as much distinction as the meteorological variables. The authors should address this issue and provide a stronger rationale for their approach.
The authors may include these two references when they explain the causes of the similar performances in terms of GHG simulations in Line 315.
- The content and significance of Figure 8 are unclear. Regardless, I observe a consistent trend in model errors across the different flights. It appears that the reanalysis data, which provide the initial and boundary conditions for WRF-GHG, dominate the model errors. The authors should clarify the information presented in Figure 8 and discuss the impact of reanalysis data on the model’s performance.
- The p-value presented in Figure 10, such as 1.24e-09, appears questionable. Could the authors clarify the number of samples used for the statistics in Figure 10? Are those r values meaningful?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2839-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', David Ho, 13 Aug 2024
We would like to thank the referee for taking the time to read through our manuscript and for the extremely positive feedback. We appreciate the effort and are convinced that the reviewer's input has enhanced the quality of the paper.
We also took the opportunity to fix a few typos we noticed in the main text. Please find the point by point response in the attachment.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2839', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Jul 2024
In this paper, the WRF model is used to simulate the transport of CO2 and CH4 for a 2-month period in 2018 at 5-km scale over Europe, with particular focus over a coal mining region of southern Poland. The authors compare the use of grid nudging and model reinitialization to improve the representation of the near-surface temperature, humidity, winds, and PBL height, and assess the implications for simulating GHGs. While somewhat similar studies have been conducted previously comparing nudging and reinitialization for simulating regional meteorology and climate, none to my knowledge have been at such high spatial resolution, nor have they focused on pollutant transport. Additionally, the linkage between soil moisture drift and PBLH errors is novel. The manuscript is well constructed and clearly written.
I recommend the paper be accepted for publication after the minor issue noted below is clarified or corrected.
Lines 271-274 say that flights suitable for model-data comparisons are denoted with asterisks in Fig. 8. However, the caption to Fig. 8 says that asterisks indicate "flights that crossed so close to nearby point sources that we cannot represent them well." It appears that the authors at some point changed whether asterisks denoted "good" vs "bad" flights for comparison against the model.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2839-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', David Ho, 13 Aug 2024
We would like to thank the referee for taking the time to read through our manuscript and for the extremely positive feedback. We appreciate the effort and are convinced that the reviewer's input has enhanced the quality of the paper.
We also took the opportunity to fix a few typos we noticed in the main text. Please find the point by point response in the attachment.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', David Ho, 13 Aug 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
405 | 153 | 35 | 593 | 71 | 36 | 18 |
- HTML: 405
- PDF: 153
- XML: 35
- Total: 593
- Supplement: 71
- BibTeX: 36
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Michał Gałkowski
Friedemann Reum
Santiago Botía
Julia Marshall
Kai Uwe Totsche
Christoph Gerbig
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(48132 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(53289 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper