Articles | Volume 13, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4271-2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4271-2020
Development and technical paper
 | 
16 Sep 2020
Development and technical paper |  | 16 Sep 2020

Can machine learning improve the model representation of turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate in the boundary layer for complex terrain?

Nicola Bodini, Julie K. Lundquist, and Mike Optis

Related authors

Performance of wind assessment datasets in United States coastal areas
Lindsay M. Sheridan, Jiali Wang, Caroline Draxl, Nicola Bodini, Caleb Phillips, Dmitry Duplyakin, Heidi Tinnesand, Raj K. Rai, Julia E. Flaherty, Larry K. Berg, Chunyong Jung, and Ethan Young
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-115,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-115, 2024
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Meteorological Impacts of Offshore Wind Turbines as Simulated in the Weather Research and Forecasting Model
Daphne Quint, Julie K. Lundquist, Nicola Bodini, and David Rosencrans
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-53,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-53, 2024
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
The 2023 National Offshore Wind data set (NOW-23)
Nicola Bodini, Mike Optis, Stephanie Redfern, David Rosencrans, Alex Rybchuk, Julie K. Lundquist, Vincent Pronk, Simon Castagneri, Avi Purkayastha, Caroline Draxl, Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Ethan Young, Billy Roberts, Evan Rosenlieb, and Walter Musial
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 1965–2006, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-1965-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-1965-2024, 2024
Short summary
Observations of wind farm wake recovery at an operating wind farm
Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Rob Newsom, Colleen Kaul, Stefano Letizia, Mikhail Pekour, Nicholas Hamilton, Duli Chand, Donna M. Flynn, Nicola Bodini, and Patrick Moriarty
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-29,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-29, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for WES
Short summary
Offshore low-level jet observations and model representation using lidar buoy data off the California coast
Lindsay M. Sheridan, Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, William I. Gustafson Jr., Ye Liu, Brian J. Gaudet, Nicola Bodini, Rob K. Newsom, and Mikhail Pekour
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 741–758, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-741-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-741-2024, 2024
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
The impact of cloud microphysics and ice nucleation on Southern Ocean clouds assessed with single-column modeling and instrument simulators
Andrew Gettelman, Richard Forbes, Roger Marchand, Chih-Chieh Chen, and Mark Fielding
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8069–8092, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8069-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8069-2024, 2024
Short summary
An updated aerosol simulation in the Community Earth System Model (v2.1.3): dust and marine aerosol emissions and secondary organic aerosol formation
Yujuan Wang, Peng Zhang, Jie Li, Yaman Liu, Yanxu Zhang, Jiawei Li, and Zhiwei Han
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7995–8021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7995-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7995-2024, 2024
Short summary
Exploring ship track spreading rates with a physics-informed Langevin particle parameterization
Lucas A. McMichael, Michael J. Schmidt, Robert Wood, Peter N. Blossey, and Lekha Patel
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7867–7888, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7867-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7867-2024, 2024
Short summary
Do data-driven models beat numerical models in forecasting weather extremes? A comparison of IFS HRES, Pangu-Weather, and GraphCast
Leonardo Olivetti and Gabriele Messori
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7915–7962, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7915-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7915-2024, 2024
Short summary
Development of the MPAS-CMAQ coupled system (V1.0) for multiscale global air quality modeling
David C. Wong, Jeff Willison, Jonathan E. Pleim, Golam Sarwar, James Beidler, Russ Bullock, Jerold A. Herwehe, Rob Gilliam, Daiwen Kang, Christian Hogrefe, George Pouliot, and Hosein Foroutan
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7855–7866, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7855-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7855-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Albertson, J. D., Parlange, M. B., Kiely, G., and Eichinger, W. E.: The average dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy in the neutral and unstable atmospheric surface layer, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 102, 13423–13432, 1997. a
Arcos Jiménez, A., Gómez Muñoz, C., and García Márquez, F.: Machine learning for wind turbine blades maintenance management, Energies, 11, 13, 2018. a
Babić, K., Bencetić Klaić, Z., and Večenaj, Ž.: Determining a turbulence averaging time scale by Fourier analysis for the nocturnal boundary layer, Geofizika, 29, 35–51, 2012. a
Barlow, R. J.: Statistics: a guide to the use of statistical methods in the physical sciences, vol. 29, John Wiley & Sons, 1989. a
Berg, L. K., Liu, Y., Yang, B., Qian, Y., Olson, J., Pekour, M., Ma, P.-L., and Hou, Z.: Sensitivity of Turbine-Height Wind Speeds to Parameters in the Planetary Boundary-Layer Parametrization Used in the Weather Research and Forecasting Model: Extension to Wintertime Conditions, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 170, 507–518, 2018. a
Download
Short summary
While turbulence dissipation rate (ε) is an essential parameter for the prediction of wind speed, its current representation in weather prediction models is inaccurate, especially in complex terrain. In this study, we leverage the potential of machine-learning techniques to provide a more accurate representation of turbulence dissipation rate. Our results show a 30 % reduction in the average error compared to the current model representation of ε and a total elimination of its average bias.