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

Observations of wind farm wake recovery at an operating wind farm
Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Rob K. Newsom, Colleen M. Kaul, Stefano Letizia, Mikhail Pekour, Nicholas Hamilton, Duli Chand, Donna Flynn, Nicola Bodini, and Patrick Moriarty
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 361–380, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-361-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-361-2025, 2025
Short summary
The effects of wind farm wakes on freezing sea spray in the mid-Atlantic offshore wind energy areas
David Rosencrans, Julie K. Lundquist, Mike Optis, and Nicola Bodini
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 59–81, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-59-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-59-2025, 2025
Short summary
Operational wind plants increase planetary boundary layer height: An observational study
Aliza Abraham, Matteo Puccioni, Arianna Jordan, Emina Maric, Nicola Bodini, Nicholas Hamilton, Stefano Letizia, Petra M. Klein, Elizabeth Smith, Sonia Wharton, Jonathan Gero, Jamey D. Jacob, Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Rob K. Newsom, Mikhail Pekour, and Patrick Moriarty
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-148,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-148, 2024
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
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
Revised manuscript 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
Revised manuscript accepted for WES
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
A Bayesian method for predicting background radiation at environmental monitoring stations in local-scale networks
Jens Peter Karolus Wenceslaus Frankemölle, Johan Camps, Pieter De Meutter, and Johan Meyers
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1989–2003, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1989-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1989-2025, 2025
Short summary
Inclusion of the ECMWF ecRad radiation scheme (v1.5.0) in the MAR (v3.14), regional evaluation for Belgium, and assessment of surface shortwave spectral fluxes at Uccle
Jean-François Grailet, Robin J. Hogan, Nicolas Ghilain, David Bolsée, Xavier Fettweis, and Marilaure Grégoire
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1965–1988, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1965-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1965-2025, 2025
Short summary
Development of a fast radiative transfer model for ground-based microwave radiometers (ARMS-gb v1.0): validation and comparison to RTTOV-gb
Yi-Ning Shi, Jun Yang, Wei Han, Lujie Han, Jiajia Mao, Wanlin Kan, and Fuzhong Weng
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1947–1964, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1947-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1947-2025, 2025
Short summary
Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology (IITM) High-Resolution Global Forecast Model version 1: an attempt to resolve monsoon prediction deadlock
R. Phani Murali Krishna, Siddharth Kumar, A. Gopinathan Prajeesh, Peter Bechtold, Nils Wedi, Kumar Roy, Malay Ganai, B. Revanth Reddy, Snehlata Tirkey, Tanmoy Goswami, Radhika Kanase, Sahadat Sarkar, Medha Deshpande, and Parthasarathi Mukhopadhyay
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1879–1894, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1879-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1879-2025, 2025
Short summary
Cell-tracking-based framework for assessing nowcasting model skill in reproducing growth and decay of convective rainfall
Jenna Ritvanen, Seppo Pulkkinen, Dmitri Moisseev, and Daniele Nerini
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1851–1878, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1851-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1851-2025, 2025
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.
Share