Urban–rural differences in near‐surface air temperature as resolved by the Central Europe Refined analysis (CER): sensitivity to planetary boundary layer schemes and urban canopy models
Urban–rural differences in near‐surface air temperature as resolved by the Central Europe Refined analysis (CER): sensitivity to planetary boundary layer schemes and urban canopy models
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/joc.4835
复制
发表时间：
2017-03
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Britta Jänicke;F. Meier;D. Fenner;Ute Fehrenbach;A. Holtmann;D. Scherer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Britta Jänicke;F. Meier;D. Fenner;Ute Fehrenbach;A. Holtmann;D. Scherer
基于模型的城市热岛研究可能会受到近地面气温（T2）误差的严重影响，特别是如果城市和农村环境之间的误差不同。此外，T2的误差强烈依赖于选定的参数化方案，特别是行星边界层（PBL）方案和城市冠层模式（UCM）。我们开发了中欧精细分析（CER），这是一个通过使用天气研究和预报（WRF）模型对中欧（30 km）、德国（10 km）和柏林-勃兰登堡（2 km）地区进行全球大气再分析而生成的数据集。对CER数据进行了分析，以研究柏林T2的城乡和城市内差异，并测试T2对两种不同PBL方案、镶嵌法和三种不同复杂程度的UCM的敏感性。使用来自22个气象站的数据对结果进行了评估。所有受试配置均模拟T2，与观察结果的偏差较小。PBL方案主要控制T2的偏差。从测试的PBL计划，Bougeault-Lacarrére计划的性能优于Mellor-Yamada-Janjić计划。不同的UCM和镶嵌方法的应用也影响了偏差，但不像PBL计划那样强烈。UCM在城市内部和城乡差异的表现方面的表现表明，当使用复杂的多层UCM时，差异最大。总体而言，最简单的模型显示出最低的偏差。我们的结论是，需要更多的研究UCM，因为复杂的UCM显示潜力，但没有超过简单的平板模型。
Model‐based studies on urban heat islands can be seriously affected by errors in near‐surface air temperature (T2), especially if errors differ between cities and their rural surroundings. Furthermore, errors in T2 strongly depend on selected parameterisation schemes, in particular on the planetary boundary layer (PBL) scheme and the urban canopy model (UCM). We developed the Central Europe Refined analysis (CER), a dataset generated by dynamically downscaling a global atmospheric reanalysis with the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model for Central Europe (30 km), Germany (10 km), and the region of Berlin‐Brandenburg (2 km). CER data were analysed to study urban–rural and intra‐urban differences in T2 for Berlin as well as to test the sensitivity of T2 against two different PBL schemes, a mosaic approach, and three UCMs with different levels of complexity. Results were evaluated using data from 22 weather stations. All tested configurations simulated T2 with small deviations from observations. The PBL schemes predominantly control the deviation of T2. From the tested PBL schemes, the Bougeault–Lacarrére scheme performed better than the Mellor–Yamada–Janjić scheme. The application of different UCMs and the mosaic approach also influenced the deviations, but not as strongly as the PBL schemes. The performance of the UCMs regarding the representation of intra‐urban and urban–rural differences showed that differences were largest when using a complex multi‐layer UCM. Overall, the simplest model showed lowest deviations. We conclude that more research on UCMs is required because complex UCMs showed potentials but did not outperform the simple slab model.