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

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 Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-490,https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-490, 2023
Preprint under review for ESSD
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. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2023-152,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2023-152, 2023
Revised manuscript accepted for WES
Short summary
Annual Variability of Wake Impacts on Mid-Atlantic Offshore Wind Plant Deployments
David Rosencrans, Julie K. Lundquist, Mike Optis, Alex Rybchuk, Nicola Bodini, and Michael Rossol
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2023-38,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2023-38, 2023
Revised manuscript accepted for WES
Short summary
Long-term uncertainty quantification in WRF-modeled offshore wind resource off the US Atlantic coast
Nicola Bodini, Simon Castagneri, and Mike Optis
Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 607–620, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-607-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-607-2023, 2023
Short summary
The sensitivity of the Fitch wind farm parameterization to a three-dimensional planetary boundary layer scheme
Alex Rybchuk, Timothy W. Juliano, Julie K. Lundquist, David Rosencrans, Nicola Bodini, and Mike Optis
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2085–2098, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2085-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2085-2022, 2022
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Impacts of updated reaction kinetics on the global GEOS-Chem simulation of atmospheric chemistry
Kelvin H. Bates, Mathew J. Evans, Barron H. Henderson, and Daniel J. Jacob
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1511–1524, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1511-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1511-2024, 2024
Short summary
Spatial spin-up of precipitation in limited-area convection-permitting simulations over North America using the CRCM6/GEM5.0 model
François Roberge, Alejandro Di Luca, René Laprise, Philippe Lucas-Picher, and Julie Thériault
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1497–1510, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1497-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1497-2024, 2024
Short summary
Sensitivity of atmospheric rivers to aerosol treatment in regional climate simulations: insights from the AIRA identification algorithm
Eloisa Raluy-López, Juan Pedro Montávez, and Pedro Jiménez-Guerrero
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1469–1495, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1469-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1469-2024, 2024
Short summary
The implementation of dust mineralogy in COSMO5.05-MUSCAT
Sofía Gómez Maqueo Anaya, Dietrich Althausen, Matthias Faust, Holger Baars, Bernd Heinold, Julian Hofer, Ina Tegen, Albert Ansmann, Ronny Engelmann, Annett Skupin, Birgit Heese, and Kerstin Schepanski
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1271–1295, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1271-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1271-2024, 2024
Short summary
Implementation of the ISORROPIA-lite aerosol thermodynamics model into the EMAC chemistry climate model (based on MESSy v2.55): implications for aerosol composition and acidity
Alexandros Milousis, Alexandra P. Tsimpidi, Holger Tost, Spyros N. Pandis, Athanasios Nenes, Astrid Kiendler-Scharr, and Vlassis A. Karydis
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1111–1131, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1111-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1111-2024, 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.