4.4 Article

WRF Model Experiments on the Antarctic Atmosphere in Winter

期刊

MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW
卷 139, 期 4, 页码 1279-1291

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/2010MWR3478.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Academy of Finland [128533, 128799]
  2. Academy of Finland (AKA) [128533, 128799, 128799, 128533] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The standard and polar versions 3.1.1 of the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model, both initialized by the 40-yr ECMWF Re-Analysis (ERA-40), were run in Antarctica for July 1998. Four different boundary layer surface layer radiation scheme combinations were used in the standard WRF. The model results were validated against observations of the 2-m temperature, surface pressure, and 10-m wind speed at 9 coastal and 2 inland stations. The best choice for boundary layer and radiation parameterizations of the standard WRF turned out to be the Yonsei University boundary layer scheme in conjunction with the fifth-generation Pennsylvania State University National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Model (MM5) surface layer scheme and the Rapid Radiative Transfer Model for longwave radiation. The respective temperature bias was on the order of 3 degrees C less than the biases obtained with the other combinations. Increasing the minimum value for eddy diffusivity did, however, improve the performance of the asymmetric convective scheme by 0.8 degrees C. Averaged over the 11 stations, the error growths in 24-h forecasts were almost identical for the standard and Polar WRF, but in 9-day forecasts Polar WRF gave a smaller 2-m temperature bias. For the Vostok station, however, the standard WRF gave a less positively biased 24-h temperature forecast. On average, the polar version gave the least biased surface pressure simulation. The wind speed simulation was characterized by low correlation values, especially under weak winds and for stations surrounded by complex topography.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据