Evaluation of WRF Modeling in Relation to Different Land Surface Schemes and Initial and Boundary Conditions: A Snow Event Simulation Over the Tibetan Plateau
Evaluation of WRF Modeling in Relation to Different Land Surface Schemes and Initial and Boundary Conditions: A Snow Event Simulation Over the Tibetan Plateau
复制标题
与不同地表方案以及初始和边界条件相关的 WRF 建模评估：青藏高原降雪事件模拟
DOI：
10.1029/2018jd029208
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Ma Weiqiang
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Liu Lian;Ma Yaoming;Menenti Massimo;Zhang Xinzhong;Ma Weiqiang
目前的文献提供了很少的证据，涵盖固体降水对地表物理方案和TP的初始和边界条件的敏感性。利用天气研究与预报（WRF）模式对2017年3月青藏高原积雪进行了6次数值模拟试验。不同的陆地表面物理方案，即社区陆地模型（CLM）、Noah和Noah‐MP，以及大气再分析数据集提供的初始条件和边界条件，即国家环境预测中心- FNL和ERA‐Interim数据集，用于敏感性分析。利用观测到的近地表空气温度、雪深和雪水当量（SWE）值来评估每个模型的性能。结果表明：(1)近地表气温对地表物理方案的敏感性大于对初始条件和边界条件的敏感性；(2)应用WRF + CLM对气温估算的均方根误差为8.4°C，平均绝对偏差为7.3°C，相关系数为0.75，空间相关系数为~0.5时，获得了最佳性能。CLM方案中反照率的先进参数化似乎是一个潜在的重要因素；(3) WRF模式的高级地表方案较详细地描述了冰冻圈和水圈过程的物理特性，地表响应是由多变量和参数决定的。这些变量和参数的空间格局决定了观测到的积雪和积雪量的详细空间变异性及其时间演变。然而，WRF模式高估了雪深和SWE的强度和范围；(4)在WRF中应用CLM或Noah‐MP + ERA‐Interim对固体降水的模拟更准确；(5) WRF对SWE估计的性能明显取决于对较轻和较重降雪的区分。
Snowfall and the subsequent evolution of the snowpack play important roles in the cryospheric and hydrospheric processes that occur on the Tibetan Plateau (TP). Current literature provides scarce evidence covering the sensitivity of solid precipitation to land surface physics schemes and initial and boundary conditions on the TP. Six numerical experiments using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model were conducted to simulate a snow event over the TP in March 2017. Different land surface physics schemes, that is, Community Land Model (CLM), Noah, and Noah‐MP, and initial and boundary conditions provided by atmospheric reanalysis data sets, that is, the National Centers for Environmental Prediction‐FNL and ERA‐Interim data sets, were applied in sensitivity analyses. The observed near‐surface air temperature, snow depth, and snow water equivalent (SWE) values were used to evaluate each model's performance. The results demonstrate that (1) the sensitivity of the near‐surface air temperature to land surface physics schemes is greater than it is to both the initial and boundary conditions; (2) the best performance is achieved when applying WRF + CLM with a root‐mean‐square error of 8.4 °C, a mean absolute deviation of 7.3 °C, a correlation coefficient of 0.75, and a spatial correlation coefficient of ~0.5 to air temperature estimates. A potentially important factor appears to be the advanced parametrization of albedo in the CLM scheme; (3) the advanced land surface schemes in the WRF model describes the physics of cryospheric and hydrospheric processes in detail, and the land surface response is determined by multiple variables and parameters in such schemes. The spatial patterns in such variables and parameters determined the detailed spatial variabilities observed in snow cover and amount and its temporal evolution. The WRF model overestimates, however, the intensity and extent of snow depth and SWE; (4) simulations of solid precipitation are more accurate when applying CLM or Noah‐MP + ERA‐Interim in WRF; and (5) WRF performance with regard to SWE estimates clearly depends upon the discrimination of lighter from heavier snowfall.