Articles | Volume 15, issue 22
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8561-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8561-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Development and technical paper
| 
23 Nov 2022
Development and technical paper |
| 23 Nov 2022
| 23 Nov 2022
Lightning assimilation in the WRF model (Version 4.1.1): technique updates and assessment of the applications from regional to hemispheric scales
Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA
Nicholas K. Heath
Air Quality and Atmospheric Composition, Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Lexington, MA 02421, USA
currently working as an independent consultant
Robert C. Gilliam
Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA
Tanya L. Spero
Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA
Jonathan E. Pleim
Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA
Related authors
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
Short summary
This work describe how we linked the meteorological Model for Prediction Across Scales – Atmosphere (MPAS-A) with the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) air quality model to form a coupled modelling system. This could be used to study air quality or climate and air quality interaction at a global scale. This new model scales well in high-performance computing environments and performs well with respect to ground surface networks in terms of ozone and PM2.5.
Megan S. Mallard, Tanya L. Spero, Jared H. Bowden, Jeff Willison, Christopher G. Nolte, and Anna M. Jalowska
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 579–594, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-579-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-579-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
“Spin-up” is time needed for a model’s result to become effectively free of influence from initial conditions, and it is usually excluded from analysis. Here, spin-up is examined by comparing one decadal simulation to another initialized 20 years prior, in order to determine when their solutions converge. Differences lessen over the first fall and winter, but re-emerge over the following spring and summer, suggesting that at least 1 annual cycle is needed to spin up regional climate simulations.
Ioannis Kioutsioukis, Christian Hogrefe, Paul A. Makar, Ummugulsum Alyuz, Jesse O. Bash, Roberto Bellasio, Roberto Bianconi, Tim Butler, Olivia E. Clifton, Philip Cheung, Alma Hodzic, Richard Kranenburg, Aura Lupascu, Kester Momoh, Juan Luis Perez-Camaño, Jonathan Pleim, Young-Hee Ryu, Roberto San Jose, Donna Schwede, Ranjeet Sokhi, and Stefano Galmarini
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 12923–12953, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-12923-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-12923-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Deposition is key in air quality modeling. An unprecedented evaluation of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative phase 4 models is performed on different deposition schemes in relation to the land use and land cover (LULC) used. Among the results, LULC masks have to be harmonized and up-to-date information used in place of masks that are outdated and too coarse. Alternatively, LULC masks should be evaluated and intercompared when multiple model results are analyzed.
Christian Hogrefe, Stefano Galmarini, Paul A. Makar, Ioannis Kioutsioukis, Olivia E. Clifton, Ummugulsum Alyuz, Jesse O. Bash, Roberto Bellasio, Roberto Bianconi, Tim Butler, Philip Cheung, Alma Hodzic, Richard Kranenburg, Aurelia Lupascu, Kester Momoh, Juan Luis Perez-Camanyo, Jonathan E. Pleim, Young-Hee Ryu, Roberto San Jose, Martijn Schaap, Donna B. Schwede, and Ranjeet Sokhi
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 12629–12656, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-12629-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-12629-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Performed under the umbrella of Phase 4 of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII4), this study applies AQMEII4 diagnostic tools to better characterize how dry deposition removes pollutants from the atmosphere in regional-scale models. The results also strongly suggest that improvement and harmonization of the representation of land use in these models would serve the community in their future development efforts.
Anam M. Khan, Olivia E. Clifton, Jesse O. Bash, Sam Bland, Nathan Booth, Philip Cheung, Lisa Emberson, Johannes Flemming, Erick Fredj, Stefano Galmarini, Laurens Ganzeveld, Orestis Gazetas, Ignacio Goded, Christian Hogrefe, Christopher D. Holmes, László Horváth, Vincent Huijnen, Qian Li, Paul A. Makar, Ivan Mammarella, Giovanni Manca, J. William Munger, Juan L. Pérez-Camanyo, Jonathan Pleim, Limei Ran, Roberto San Jose, Donna Schwede, Sam J. Silva, Ralf Staebler, Shihan Sun, Amos P. K. Tai, Eran Tas, Timo Vesala, Tamás Weidinger, Zhiyong Wu, Leiming Zhang, and Paul C. Stoy
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 8613–8635, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-8613-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-8613-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Vegetation removes tropospheric ozone through stomatal uptake, and accurately modeling the stomatal uptake of ozone is important for modeling dry deposition and air quality. We evaluated the stomatal component of ozone dry deposition modeled by atmospheric chemistry models at six sites. We find that models and observation-based estimates agree at times during the growing season at all sites, but some models overestimated the stomatal component during the dry summers at a seasonally dry site.
Sara L. Farrell, Havala O. T. Pye, Robert Gilliam, George Pouliot, Deanna Huff, Golam Sarwar, William Vizuete, Nicole Briggs, Fengkui Duan, Tao Ma, Shuping Zhang, and Kathleen Fahey
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 3287–3312, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-3287-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-3287-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this work we implement heterogeneous sulfur chemistry into the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model. This new chemistry accounts for the formation of sulfate via aqueous oxidation of SO2 in aerosol liquid water and the formation of hydroxymethanesulfonate (HMS) – often confused by measurement techniques as sulfate. Model performance in predicting sulfur PM2.5 in Fairbanks, Alaska, and other places that experience dark and cold winters is improved.
Paul A. Makar, Philip Cheung, Christian Hogrefe, Ayodeji Akingunola, Ummugulsum Alyuz, Jesse O. Bash, Michael D. Bell, Roberto Bellasio, Roberto Bianconi, Tim Butler, Hazel Cathcart, Olivia E. Clifton, Alma Hodzic, Ioannis Kioutsioukis, Richard Kranenburg, Aurelia Lupascu, Jason A. Lynch, Kester Momoh, Juan L. Perez-Camanyo, Jonathan Pleim, Young-Hee Ryu, Roberto San Jose, Donna Schwede, Thomas Scheuschner, Mark W. Shephard, Ranjeet S. Sokhi, and Stefano Galmarini
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 3049–3107, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-3049-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-3049-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The large range of sulfur and nitrogen deposition estimates from air quality models results in a large range of predicted impacts. We used models and deposition diagnostics to identify the processes controlling atmospheric sulfur and nitrogen deposition variability. Controlling factors included the uptake of gases and aerosols by hydrometeors, aerosol inorganic chemistry, particle dry deposition, ammonia bidirectional fluxes, gas deposition via plant cuticles and soil, and land use data.
Wei Li, Beiming Tang, Patrick C. Campbell, Youhua Tang, Barry Baker, Zachary Moon, Daniel Tong, Jianping Huang, Kai Wang, Ivanka Stajner, and Raffaele Montuoro
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1635–1660, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1635-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1635-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The study describes the updates of NOAA's current UFS-AQMv7 air quality forecast model by incorporating the latest scientific and structural changes in CMAQv5.4. An evaluation during the summer of 2023 shows that the updated model overall improves the simulation of MDA8 O3 by reducing the bias by 8%–12% in the contiguous US. PM2.5 predictions have mixed results due to wildfire, highlighting the need for future refinements.
Natalie Brett, Kathy S. Law, Steve R. Arnold, Javier G. Fochesatto, Jean-Christophe Raut, Tatsuo Onishi, Robert Gilliam, Kathleen Fahey, Deanna Huff, George Pouliot, Brice Barret, Elsa Dieudonné, Roman Pohorsky, Julia Schmale, Andrea Baccarini, Slimane Bekki, Gianluca Pappaccogli, Federico Scoto, Stefano Decesari, Antonio Donateo, Meeta Cesler-Maloney, William Simpson, Patrice Medina, Barbara D'Anna, Brice Temime-Roussel, Joel Savarino, Sarah Albertin, Jingqiu Mao, Becky Alexander, Allison Moon, Peter F. DeCarlo, Vanessa Selimovic, Robert Yokelson, and Ellis S. Robinson
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 1063–1104, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-1063-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-1063-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Processes influencing dispersion of local anthropogenic pollution in Arctic wintertime are investigated with Lagrangian dispersion modelling. Simulated power plant plume rise that considers temperature inversion layers improves results compared to observations (interior Alaska). Modelled surface concentrations are improved by representation of vertical mixing and emission estimates. Large increases in diesel vehicle emissions at temperatures reaching −35°C are required to reproduce observed NOx.
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
Short summary
This work describe how we linked the meteorological Model for Prediction Across Scales – Atmosphere (MPAS-A) with the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) air quality model to form a coupled modelling system. This could be used to study air quality or climate and air quality interaction at a global scale. This new model scales well in high-performance computing environments and performs well with respect to ground surface networks in terms of ozone and PM2.5.
Olivia E. Clifton, Donna Schwede, Christian Hogrefe, Jesse O. Bash, Sam Bland, Philip Cheung, Mhairi Coyle, Lisa Emberson, Johannes Flemming, Erick Fredj, Stefano Galmarini, Laurens Ganzeveld, Orestis Gazetas, Ignacio Goded, Christopher D. Holmes, László Horváth, Vincent Huijnen, Qian Li, Paul A. Makar, Ivan Mammarella, Giovanni Manca, J. William Munger, Juan L. Pérez-Camanyo, Jonathan Pleim, Limei Ran, Roberto San Jose, Sam J. Silva, Ralf Staebler, Shihan Sun, Amos P. K. Tai, Eran Tas, Timo Vesala, Tamás Weidinger, Zhiyong Wu, and Leiming Zhang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 9911–9961, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9911-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9911-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
A primary sink of air pollutants is dry deposition. Dry deposition estimates differ across the models used to simulate atmospheric chemistry. Here, we introduce an effort to examine dry deposition schemes from atmospheric chemistry models. We provide our approach’s rationale, document the schemes, and describe datasets used to drive and evaluate the schemes. We also launch the analysis of results by evaluating against observations and identifying the processes leading to model–model differences.
Bryan K. Place, William T. Hutzell, K. Wyat Appel, Sara Farrell, Lukas Valin, Benjamin N. Murphy, Karl M. Seltzer, Golam Sarwar, Christine Allen, Ivan R. Piletic, Emma L. D'Ambro, Emily Saunders, Heather Simon, Ana Torres-Vasquez, Jonathan Pleim, Rebecca H. Schwantes, Matthew M. Coggon, Lu Xu, William R. Stockwell, and Havala O. T. Pye
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 9173–9190, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9173-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9173-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Ground-level ozone is a pollutant with adverse human health and ecosystem effects. Air quality models allow scientists to understand the chemical production of ozone and demonstrate impacts of air quality management plans. In this work, the role of multiple systems in ozone production was investigated for the northeastern US in summer. Model updates to chemical reaction rates and monoterpene chemistry were most influential in decreasing predicted ozone and improving agreement with observations.
Christian Hogrefe, Jesse O. Bash, Jonathan E. Pleim, Donna B. Schwede, Robert C. Gilliam, Kristen M. Foley, K. Wyat Appel, and Rohit Mathur
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 8119–8147, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8119-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8119-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Under the umbrella of the fourth phase of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII4), this study applies AQMEII4 diagnostic tools to better characterize how dry deposition removes pollutants from the atmosphere in the widely used CMAQ model. The results illustrate how these tools can provide insights into similarities and differences between the two CMAQ dry deposition options that affect simulated pollutant budgets and ecosystem impacts from atmospheric pollution.
James D. East, Barron H. Henderson, Sergey L. Napelenok, Shannon N. Koplitz, Golam Sarwar, Robert Gilliam, Allen Lenzen, Daniel Q. Tong, R. Bradley Pierce, and Fernando Garcia-Menendez
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 15981–16001, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-15981-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-15981-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present a framework that uses a computer model of air quality, along with air pollution data from satellite instruments, to estimate emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) across the Northern Hemisphere. The framework, which advances current methods to infer emissions from satellite observations, provides observationally constrained NOx estimates, including in regions of the world where emissions are highly uncertain, and can improve simulations of air pollutants relevant for health and policy.
Sarah E. Benish, Jesse O. Bash, Kristen M. Foley, K. Wyat Appel, Christian Hogrefe, Robert Gilliam, and George Pouliot
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 12749–12767, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12749-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12749-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We assess Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model simulations of nitrogen and sulfur deposition over US climate regions to evaluate the model ability to reproduce long-term deposition trends and total deposition budgets. A measurement–model fusion technique is found to improve estimates of wet deposition. Emission controls set by the Clean Air Act successfully decreased oxidized nitrogen deposition across the US; we find increasing amounts of reduced nitrogen to the total nitrogen budget.
Patrick C. Campbell, Youhua Tang, Pius Lee, Barry Baker, Daniel Tong, Rick Saylor, Ariel Stein, Jianping Huang, Ho-Chun Huang, Edward Strobach, Jeff McQueen, Li Pan, Ivanka Stajner, Jamese Sims, Jose Tirado-Delgado, Youngsun Jung, Fanglin Yang, Tanya L. Spero, and Robert C. Gilliam
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3281–3313, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3281-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3281-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
NOAA's National Air Quality Forecast Capability (NAQFC) continues to protect Americans from the harmful effects of air pollution, while saving billions of dollars per year. Here we describe and evaluate the development of the most advanced version of the NAQFC to date, which became operational at NOAA on 20 July 2021. The new NAQFC is based on a coupling of NOAA's operational Global Forecast System (GFS) version 16 with the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model version 5.3.1.
Jiandong Wang, Jia Xing, Shuxiao Wang, Rohit Mathur, Jiaping Wang, Yuqiang Zhang, Chao Liu, Jonathan Pleim, Dian Ding, Xing Chang, Jingkun Jiang, Peng Zhao, Shovan Kumar Sahu, Yuzhi Jin, David C. Wong, and Jiming Hao
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 5147–5156, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5147-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5147-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosols reduce surface solar radiation and change the photolysis rate and planetary boundary layer stability. In this study, the online coupled meteorological and chemistry model was used to explore the detailed pathway of how aerosol direct effects affect secondary inorganic aerosol. The effects through the dynamics pathway act as an equally or even more important route compared with the photolysis pathway in affecting secondary aerosol concentration in both summer and winter.
Kai Wang, Yang Zhang, Shaocai Yu, David C. Wong, Jonathan Pleim, Rohit Mathur, James T. Kelly, and Michelle Bell
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 7189–7221, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7189-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7189-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The two-way coupled WRF-CMAQ model accounting for complex chemistry–meteorology feedbacks has been applied to the long-term predictions of regional meteorology and air quality over the US. The model results show superior performance and importance of chemistry–meteorology feedbacks when compared to the offline coupled WRF and CMAQ simulations, which suggests that feedbacks should be considered along with other factors in developing future model applications to inform policy making.
Stefano Galmarini, Paul Makar, Olivia E. Clifton, Christian Hogrefe, Jesse O. Bash, Roberto Bellasio, Roberto Bianconi, Johannes Bieser, Tim Butler, Jason Ducker, Johannes Flemming, Alma Hodzic, Christopher D. Holmes, Ioannis Kioutsioukis, Richard Kranenburg, Aurelia Lupascu, Juan Luis Perez-Camanyo, Jonathan Pleim, Young-Hee Ryu, Roberto San Jose, Donna Schwede, Sam Silva, and Ralf Wolke
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 15663–15697, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-15663-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-15663-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This technical note presents the research protocols for phase 4 of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII4). This initiative has three goals: (i) to define the state of wet and dry deposition in regional models, (ii) to evaluate how dry deposition influences air concentration and flux predictions, and (iii) to identify the causes for prediction differences. The evaluation compares LULC-specific dry deposition and effective conductances and fluxes.
Cited articles
Abarca, S. F., Corbosiero, K. L., and Galarneau Jr., T. J.: An evaluation of the Worldwide Lightning Location Network (WWLLN) using the National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN) as ground truth, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D18206, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013411, 2010.
Allen, D. J., Pickering, K. E., Pinder, R. W., Henderson, B. H., Appel, K. W., and Prados, A.: Impact of lightning-NO on eastern United States photochemistry during the summer of 2006 as determined using the CMAQ model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 1737–1758, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-1737-2012, 2012.
Appel, K. W., Gilliam, R. C., Davis, N., Zubrow, A., and Howard, S. C.: Overview of the Atmospheric Model Evaluation Tool (AMET) v1.1 for evaluating meteorological and air quality models, Environ. Modell. Softw., 26, 434–443, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.09.007, 2011.
Appel, K. W., Bash, J. O., Fahey, K. M., Foley, K. M., Gilliam, R. C., Hogrefe, C., Hutzell, W. T., Kang, D., Mathur, R., Murphy, B. N., Napelenok, S. L., Nolte, C. G., Pleim, J. E., Pouliot, G. A., Pye, H. O. T., Ran, L., Roselle, S. J., Sarwar, G., Schwede, D. B., Sidi, F. I., Spero, T. L., and Wong, D. C.: The Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model versions 5.3 and 5.3.1: system updates and evaluation, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2867–2897, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2867-2021, 2021.
Asong, Z. E., Razavi, S., Wheater, H. S., and Wong, J. S.: Evaluation of Integrated Multisatellite Retrievals for GPM (IMERG)over Southern Canada against Ground Precipitation Observations: A Preliminary Assessment, J. Hydrometeorol., 18, 1033–1050, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-16-0187.1, 2017.
Bruning, E. C., Weiss, S. A., and Calhoun, K. M.: Continuous variability in thunderstorm primary electrification and an evaluation of inverted-polarity terminology, Atmos. Res., 135–136, 274–284, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2012.10.009, 2014.
Burgesser, R. E.: Assessment of the World Wide Lightning Location Network (WWLLN) detection efficiency by comparison to the Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS), Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 143, 2809–2817, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3129, 2017.
Fierro, A. O., Mansell, E. R., Ziegler, C. L., and MacGorman, D. R.: Application of a lightning data assimilation technique in the WRFARW model at cloud-resolving scales for the tornado outbreak of 24 May 2011, Mon. Weather Rev., 140, 2609–2627, 2012.
Fierro, A. O., Clark, A., Mansell, E. R., MacGorman, D. R., Dembek, S. R., and Ziegler, C. L.: Impact of storm-scale lightning data assimilation on WRF-ARW precipitation forecasts during the 2013 warm season over the contiguous United States, Mon. Weather Rev., 143, 757–777, 2015.
Finney, D. L., Doherty, R. M., Wild, O., Huntrieser, H., Pumphrey, H. C., and Blyth, A. M.: Using cloud ice flux to parametrise large-scale lightning, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 12665–12682, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-12665-2014, 2014.
Gan, R., Yang, Y., Xie, Q., Lin, E., Wang, Y., and Liu, P.: Assimilation of Radar and Cloud-to-Ground Lightning Data Using WRF-3DVar Combined with the Physical Initialization Method – A Case Study of a Mesoscale Convective System, J. Meteorol. Res.-PRC, 35, 329–342, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-021-0092-4, 2021.
Giannaros, T. M., Kotroni, V., and Lagouvardos, K.: WRF-LTNGDA: A lightning data assimilation technique implemented in the WRF model for improving precipitation forecasts, Environ. Modell. Softw., 76, 54–68, 2016.
Gilliam, R. C., Herwehe, J. A., Bullock, Jr., O. R., Pleim, J. E., Ran, L., Campbell, P. C., and Foroutan, H.: Establishing the suitability of the model for prediction across scales for global retrospective air quality modeling, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2020JD033588, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033588, 2021.
Glotfelty, T., Alapaty, K., He, J., Hawbecker, P., Song, X., and Zhang, G.: The Weather Research and Forecasting Model with Aerosol–Cloud Interactions (WRF-ACI): Development, evaluation, and initial application, Mon. Weather Rev., 147, 1491–1511, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0267.1, 2019.
Goodman, S. J., Blakeslee, R. J., Koshak, W. J., Mach, D., Baiely, J., Buechler, D., Carey, L., Schultz, C., Bateman, M., McCaul Jr., E., and Stano G.: The GOES-R Geostationary Lightning Mapper (GLM), Atmos. Res., 125–126, 34–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2013.01.006, 2013.
Heath, N. K., Pleim, J. E., Gilliam, R. C., and Kang, D.: A simple lightning assimilation technique for improving retrospective WRF simulations, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 8, 1806–1824, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016MS000735, 2016.
Hogrefe, C., Gilliam, R., Mathur, R., Henderson, B., Sarwar, G., Appel, K. W., Pouliot, G., Willison, J., Miller, R., Vukovich, J., Eyth, A., Talgo, K., Allen, C., and Foley, K.: CMAQv5.3.2 ozone simulations over the Northern Hemisphere: model performance and sensitivity to model configuration, 20th Annual CMAS Conference, 1–5 November 2021, Virtual, https://www.cmascenter.org/conference/2021/slides/hogrefe-cmaq5-3-2-ozone-2021.pdf (last access: 7 November 2022), 2021.
Huffman, G. J., Adler, R. F., and Nelkin, E. J.: Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievalsfor GPM (IMERG) technical documentation, NASA/GSFC Code612 Tech. Doc., 48 pp., http://pmm.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/document_files/IMERG_doc.pdf (last access: 7 November 2022), 2015.
Kain, J. S.: The Kain-Fritsch convective parameterization: An update, J. Appl. Meteorol., 43, 170–181, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(2004)043<0170:TKCPAU>2.0.CO;2, 2004.
Kain, J. S. and Fritsch, J. M.: A one-dimensional entraining/detraining plume model and its application in convective parameterization, J. Atmos. Sci., 47, 2784–2802, 1990.
Kain, J. S. and Fritsch, J. M.: Convective parameterization for mesoscale models: the Kain–Fritsch scheme, The Representation of Cumulus Convection in Numerical Models, Meteor. Mon., 46, 165–170, 1993.
Kang, D., Foley, K. M., Mathur, R., Roselle, S. J., Pickering, K. E., and Allen, D. J.: Simulating lightning NO production in CMAQv5.2: performance evaluations, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4409–4424, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4409-2019, 2019a.
Kang, D., Pickering, K. E., Allen, D. J., Foley, K. M., Wong, D. C., Mathur, R., and Roselle, S. J.: Simulating lightning NO production in CMAQv5.2: evolution of scientific updates, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 3071–3083, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3071-2019, 2019b.
Kang, D., Mathur, R., Pouliot, G. A., Gilliam, R. C., and Wong, D. C.: Significant ground-level ozone attributed to lightning-induced nitrogen oxides during summertime over the Mountain West States, npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 3, 6, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-0108-2, 2020.
Kang, D., Heath, N., Gilliam, R., Spero, T., and Pleim, J.: Lightning Assimilation in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model: Technique Updates and Assessment of the Applications from Regional to Hemispheric Scales (1.0), Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6493145, 2022.
Lagouvardos, K., Kotroni, V., Defer, E., and Bousquet, O.: Study of a heavy precipitation event over southern France, in the frame of HYMEX project: Observational analysis and model results using assimilation of lightning, Atmos. Res., 134, 45–55, 2013.
Liu, Y., Warner, T. T., Bowers, J. F., Carson, L. P., Chen, F., Clough, C. A., Davis, C. A., Egeland, C. H., Halvorson, S. F., Huck Jr., T. W., Lachapelle, L., Malone, R. E., Rife, D. L., Sheu, R.-S., Swerdlin, S. P., and Weingarten, D. S.: The operational mesogamma-scale analysis and forecast system of the U. S. Army Test and Evaluation Command. Part 1: Overview of the modeling system, the forecast products, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 47, 1077–1092, 2008.
Lopez, P.: A lightning parameterization for the ECMWF Integrated Forecasting System, Mon. Weather Rev., 144, 30573075, https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr-d-16-0026.1, 2016.
Ma, L.-M. and Tan, Z. M.: Improving the Behavior of the Cumulus Parameterization for Tropical Cyclone Prediction: Convection Trigger, Atmos. Res., 92, 190–211, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2008.09.022, 2009.
Mach, D. M., Christian, H. J., Blakeslee, R. J., Boccipio, D. J., Goodman, S. J., and Boeck, W. L.: Performance assessment of the Optical Transient Detector and Lightning Imaging Sensor, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D09210, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007787, 2007.
Mansell, E. R., Ziegler, C. L., and MacGorman, D. R.: A lightning data assimilation technique for mesoscale forecast models, Mon. Weather Rev., 135, 1732–1748, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3387.1, 2007.
Marchand, M. R. and Fuelberg, H. E.: Assimilation of lightning data using a nudging method involving low-level warming, Mon. Weather Rev., 142, 4850–4871, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00076.1, 2015.
Murphy, M. J., Cramer, J. A., and Said, R. K.: Recent history of upgrades to the U. S. National Detection Network, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 38, 573–581, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0215.1, 2021.
Murphy, M. S. and Konrad II, C. E.: Spatial and temporal patterns of thunderstorm events that produce cloud-to-ground lightning in the interior southeastern United States, Mon. Weather Rev., 133, 1417–1420, 2005.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: CPC Global Unified Gauge-Based Analysis of Daily Precipitation, NOAA [data set], https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.cpc.globalprecip.html, last access: 10 November 2022.
Preston, A. D. and Fuelberg, H. E.: Improving lightning cessation guidance using polarimetric radar data, Weather Forecast., 30, 308–328, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-14-00031.1, 2015.
Price, C. and Rind, D.: A simple lightning parameterization for calculating global lightning distributions, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 97, 99199933, https://doi.org/10.1029/92jd00719, 1992.
Rogers, R. F., Fritsch, J. M., and Lambert, W. C.: A simple technique for using radar data in the dynamic initialization of a mesoscale model, Mon. Weather Rev., 128, 2560–2574, 2000.
Romps, D. M., Seeley, J. T., Vollaro, D., and Molinari, J.: Projected increase in lightning strikes in the United States due to global warming, Science, 346, 851854, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259100, 2014.
Rudlosky, S. D. and Shea, D. T.: Evaluation WWLLN performance relative to TRMM/LIS, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 2344–2348, https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50428, 2013.
Sims, A. P., Alapaty, K., and Raman, S.: Sensitivities of Summertime Mesoscale Circulations in the Coastal Carolinas to Modifications of the Kain-Fritsch Cumulus Parameterization, Mon. Weather Rev., 145, 4381–4399, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-16-0047.1, 2017.
Skamarock, W. C. and Klemp, J. B.: A time-split nonhydrostatic atmospheric model, J. Comput. Phys., 227, 3465–3485, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2007.01.037, 2008.
Stolzenburg, M. and Marshall, T. C.: Electric field and charge structure in lightning-producing clouds, in: Lightning: Principles, Instruments and Applications, edited by: Betz, H.-D., Schumann, U., and Laroche, P., Springer, 641 pp., https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9079-0_3, 2009.
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research: WRFv4.1.1 (Version 4.1.1), GitHub [data set], https://github.com/wrf-model/WRF/tree/v4.1.1, last access: 10 November 2022a.
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research: PRISM High-Resolution Spatial Climate Data for the United States, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research [data set], https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/prism-high-resolution-spatial-climate-data-united-states-maxmin-temp-dewpoint, last access: 10 November 2022b.
University of Washington: Lightning flash data from the World Lightning Location Network, University of Washington [data set], http://wwlln.net, last access: 10 November 2022.
U. S. EPA: Meteorological Model Performance for Annual 2016 Simulation WRF v3.8, EPA-454/R-19-010, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/met_model_performance-2016_wrf.pdf (last access: 7 November 2022), 2019.
Vaisala Inc.: The lightning flashes data from National Lightning Detection Network, Vaisala Inc. [data set], https://www.vaisala.com/en/products/systems/lightning-detection, last access: 10 November 2022.
Zheng, Y., Alapaty, K., Herwehe, J. A., Del Genio, A. D., and Niyogi, D.: Improving high-resolution weather forecasts using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model with an updated Kain–Fritsch scheme, Mon. Weather Rev., 144, 833–860, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-15-0005.1, 2016.
Short summary
A lightning assimilation (LTA) technique implemented in the WRF model's Kain–Fritsch (KF) convective scheme is updated and applied to simulations from regional to hemispheric scales using observed lightning flashes from ground-based lightning detection networks. Different user-toggled options associated with the KF scheme on simulations with and without LTA are assessed. The model's performance is improved significantly by LTA, but it is sensitive to various factors.
A lightning assimilation (LTA) technique implemented in the WRF model's Kain–Fritsch (KF)...
