Articles | Volume 15, issue 21
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8111-2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8111-2022
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

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
Yeti 1.0: a generalized framework for constructing bottom-up emission inventories from traffic sources at road-link resolutions
Edward C. Chan, Joana Leitão, Andreas Kerschbaumer, and Timothy M. Butler
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1427–1444, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1427-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1427-2023, 2023
Short summary
Analysis of systematic biases in tropospheric hydrostatic delay models and construction of a correction model
Haopeng Fan, Siran Li, Zhongmiao Sun, Guorui Xiao, Xinxing Li, and Xiaogang Liu
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1345–1358, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1345-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1345-2023, 2023
Short summary
A new precipitation emulator (PREMU v1.0) for lower-complexity models
Gang Liu, Shushi Peng, Chris Huntingford, and Yi Xi
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1277–1296, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1277-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1277-2023, 2023
Short summary
Simulating marine neodymium isotope distributions using Nd v1.0 coupled to the ocean component of the FAMOUS–MOSES1 climate model: sensitivities to reversible scavenging efficiency and benthic source distributions
Suzanne Robinson, Ruza F. Ivanovic, Lauren J. Gregoire, Julia Tindall, Tina van de Flierdt, Yves Plancherel, Frerk Pöppelmeier, Kazuyo Tachikawa, and Paul J. Valdes
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1231–1264, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1231-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1231-2023, 2023
Short summary
CMIP6 simulations with the compact Earth system model OSCAR v3.1
Yann Quilcaille, Thomas Gasser, Philippe Ciais, and Olivier Boucher
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1129–1161, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1129-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1129-2023, 2023
Short summary

Cited articles

Angevine, W. M., Jiang, H., and Mauritsen, T.: Performance of an eddy diffusivity–mass flux scheme for shallow cumulus boundary layers, Mon. Weather Rev., 138, 2895–2912, 2010. 
Barlage, M., Miao, S., and Chen, F.: Impact of physics parameterizations on high-resolution weather prediction over two Chinese megacities, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 4487–4498, 2016. 
Bougeault, P. and Lacarrere, P.: Parameterization of orography-induced turbulence in a mesobeta–scale model, Mon. Weather Rev., 117, 1872–1890, 1989. 
Bretherton, C. S. and Park, S.: A new moist turbulence parameterization in the Community Atmosphere Model, J. Climate, 22, 3422–3448, 2009. 
Cai, W., Li, K., Liao, H., Wang, H., and Wu, L.: Weather conditions conducive to Beijing severe haze more frequent under climate change, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 257–262, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3249, 2017. 
Download
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.