Impact of physical parameterizations on wind simulation with WRF V3.9.1.1 under stable conditions at planetary boundary layer gray-zone resolution: a case study over the coastal regions of North China

Yu, Entao; Bai, Rui; Chen, Xia; Shao, Lifang

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8111-2022

Articles | Volume 15, issue 21

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8111-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8111-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 21

Model evaluation paper

|

11 Nov 2022

Model evaluation paper |

| 11 Nov 2022

Impact of physical parameterizations on wind simulation with WRF V3.9.1.1 under stable conditions at planetary boundary layer gray-zone resolution: a case study over the coastal regions of North China

Entao Yu, Rui Bai, Xia Chen, and Lifang Shao

Download

Final revised paper (published on 11 Nov 2022)
Preprint (discussion started on 05 May 2022)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

CC1:
'Comment on gmd-2022-53', Xueying Liu, 11 May 2022

Hi just want to check if CORR function in P6 L174 has missing symbol Σ inside of the two squart roots?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-53-CC1
- AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Entao Yu, 12 May 2022
  
  Yes, Σ is missing in the equation, thanks very much for pointing this out, and these errors in the equations will be corrected in the revision.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-53-AC1
RC1:
'Comment on gmd-2022-53', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 May 2022

Please see the attachment

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-53-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Entao Yu, 05 Aug 2022
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2022-53/gmd-2022-53-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-53-AC2
RC2:
'Comment on gmd-2022-53', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Jun 2022

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2022-53/gmd-2022-53-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-53-RC2
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Entao Yu, 05 Aug 2022
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gmd.copernicus.org/preprints/gmd-2022-53/gmd-2022-53-AC3-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-53-AC3

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Entao Yu on behalf of the Authors (05 Aug 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (08 Aug 2022) by Axel Lauer

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (19 Aug 2022)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (03 Sep 2022)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (26 Sep 2022) by Axel Lauer

Dear authors,

Thank you for the revised version of your paper "Impact of physical parameterizations on wind simulation with WRF V3.9.1.1 under stable conditions at PBL gray-zone resolution: a case study over the coastal regions of North China". Both reviewers agree that the new version of the manuscript has improved substantially and have only a few additional comments (please see below and pdf attached). Please consider their comments when preparing a new version of the manuscript before the paper can be accepted for publication in Geoscientific Model Development.

Thank you,
Axel Lauer (handling topical editor)

---

*** Report #1 ***

Second round review of “Impact of physical parameterizations on wind simulation with WRF V3.9.1.1 over the coastal regions of North China at PBL gray-zone resolution” by Yu et al.

In general, the authors have responded quite well to my feedback. I thank them for their attention to details. However, there are two remaining points that the authors should address before the paper is ready for publication.

Specific comments:
1. Impact of different surface layer (SL) schemes: I understand that it is not possible to run all of the simulations with the same SL scheme, but it still would be nice to see the impact. For example, they could choose one configuration that is compatible with multiple SL schemes and run one more simulation while modifying the SL scheme. If the authors do not wish to run any additional simulations at this point, then they should at least provide some brief discussion on this issue.

2. Figure 13: Please indicate at which height you are plotting the wind field.

*** Report #2 ***

Please see pdf attached (gmd-2022-53-comments-to-author.pdf).

Comments to the Author: PDF

Hide

AR by Entao Yu on behalf of the Authors (05 Oct 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (13 Oct 2022) by Axel Lauer

AR by Entao Yu on behalf of the Authors (13 Oct 2022) Manuscript

Short summary

A large number of simulations are conducted to investigate how different physical parameterization schemes impact surface wind simulations under stable weather conditions over the coastal regions of North China using the Weather Research and Forecasting model with a horizontal grid spacing of 0.5 km. Results indicate that the simulated wind speed is most sensitive to the planetary boundary layer schemes, followed by short-wave/long-wave radiation schemes and microphysics schemes.