Articles | Volume 17, issue 7
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2855-2024
© Author(s) 2024. 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-17-2855-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Model evaluation paper
| 
16 Apr 2024
Model evaluation paper |
| 16 Apr 2024
| 16 Apr 2024
Modelling wind farm effects in HARMONIE–AROME (cycle 43.2.2) – Part 1: Implementation and evaluation
DTU Wind and Energy Systems, Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark
Henrik Vedel
Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), Sankt Kjelds Plads 11, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
Xiaoli Guo Larsén
DTU Wind and Energy Systems, Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark
Natalie E. Theeuwes
Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), Utrechtseweg 297, 3731 GA De Bilt, the Netherlands
Gregor Giebel
DTU Wind and Energy Systems, Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark
Eigil Kaas
Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), Sankt Kjelds Plads 11, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
Related authors
Jana Fischereit, Kurt Schaldemose Hansen, Xiaoli Guo Larsén, Maarten Paul van der Laan, Pierre-Elouan Réthoré, and Juan Pablo Murcia Leon
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 1069–1091, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1069-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1069-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Wind turbines extract kinetic energy from the flow to create electricity. This induces a wake of reduced wind speed downstream of a turbine and consequently downstream of a wind farm. Different types of numerical models have been developed to calculate this effect. In this study, we compared models of different complexity, together with measurements over two wind farms. We found that higher-fidelity models perform better and the considered rapid models cannot fully capture the wake effect.
Xiaoli G. Larsén and Jana Fischereit
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3141–3158, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3141-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3141-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
For the first time, turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) calculated from the explicit wake parameterization (EWP) in WRF is examined using high-frequency measurements over a wind farm and compared with that calculated using the Fitch et al. (2012) scheme. We examined the effect of farm-induced TKE advection in connection with the Fitch scheme. Through a case study with a low-level jet (LLJ), we analyzed the key features of LLJs and raised the issue of interaction between wind farms and LLJs.
Johanne Kristine Haandbæk Øelund, Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, Rune Magnus Koktvedgaard Zeitzen, Henrik Vedel, and Henrik Feddersen
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3173, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3173, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS).
Short summary
Short summary
This study explores how a powerful storm like Anatol, which hit Denmark in 1999, could change in a warmer future climate. Using a weather model, the storm was simulated under future temperature conditions. Results show stronger winds affecting larger areas for longer periods. A new index was introduced to measure storm severity. The findings highlight the growing risks to infrastructure and the need for better storm preparedness.
Nathalia Correa-Sánchez, Xiaoli Guo Larsén, Giorgia Fosser, Eleonora Dallan, Marco Borga, and Francesco Marra
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-111, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-111, 2025
Revised manuscript under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
We examined the power spectra of wind speed in three convection-permitting models in central Europe and found these models have a better representation of wind variability characteristics than standard wind datasets like the New European Wind Atlas, due to different simulation approaches, providing more reliable extreme wind predictions.
Branko Kosović, Sukanta Basu, Jacob Berg, Larry K. Berg, Sue E. Haupt, Xiaoli G. Larsén, Joachim Peinke, Richard J. A. M. Stevens, Paul Veers, and Simon Watson
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-42, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-42, 2025
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
Most human activity happens in the layer of the atmosphere which extends a few hundred meters to a couple of kilometers above the surface of the Earth. The flow in this layer is turbulent. Turbulence impacts wind power production and turbine lifespan. Optimizing wind turbine performance requires understanding how turbulence affects both wind turbine efficiency and reliability. This paper points to gaps in our knowledge that need to be addressed to effectively utilize wind resources.
Natalie E. Theeuwes, Janet F. Barlow, Antti Mannisenaho, Denise Hertwig, Ewan O'Connor, and Alan Robins
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 1355–1371, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-1355-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-1355-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
A Doppler lidar was placed in a highly built-up area in London to measure wakes from tall buildings during a period of 1 year. We were able to detect wakes and assess their dependence on wind speed, wind direction, and atmospheric stability.
Sara Müller, Xiaoli Guo Larsén, and Fei Hu
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-7, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-7, 2025
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
Wind farms are being developed in areas prone to tropical cyclones. However, it remains unclear whether turbulence models in current design standards, such as the Mann uniform shear model, are suitable for these conditions. For the first time the Mann model is assessed using high-frequency tropical cyclone measurements from four typhoons. Enhanced spectral energy is found at low wavenumbers, especially in the crosswind component during typhoon conditions.
Sara Müller, Xiaoli Guo Larsén, and David Robert Verelst
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 1153–1171, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1153-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1153-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Tropical cyclone winds are challenging for wind turbines. We analyze a tropical cyclone before landfall in a mesoscale model. The simulated wind speeds and storm structure are sensitive to the boundary parametrization. However, independent of the boundary layer parametrization, the median change in wind speed and wind direction with height is small relative to wind turbine design standards. Strong spatial organization of wind shear and veer along the rainbands may increase wind turbine loads.
Xiaoli Guo Larsén, Marc Imberger, Ásta Hannesdóttir, and Andrea N. Hahmann
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-102, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-102, 2023
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
We study how climate change will impact extreme winds and choice of turbine class. We use data from 18 CMIP6 members from a historic and a future period to access the change in the extreme winds. The analysis shows an overall increase in the extreme winds in the North Sea and the southern Baltic Sea, but a decrease over the Scandinavian Peninsula and most of the Baltic Sea. The analysis is inconclusive to whether higher or lower classes of turbines will be installed in the future.
Xiaoli Guo Larsén and Søren Ott
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2457–2468, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2457-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2457-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
A method is developed for calculating the extreme wind in tropical-cyclone-affected water areas. The method is based on the spectral correction method that fills in the missing wind variability to the modeled time series, guided by best track data. The paper provides a detailed recipe for applying the method and the 50-year winds of equivalent 10 min temporal resolution from 10 to 150 m in several tropical-cyclone-affected regions.
Viktor J. Bruckman, Gregor Giebel, Christopher Juhlin, Sonja Martens, and Michael Kühn
Adv. Geosci., 58, 87–91, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-58-87-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-58-87-2022, 2022
Turið Poulsen, Bárður A. Niclasen, Gregor Giebel, and Hans Georg Beyer
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2335–2350, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2335-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2335-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Wind power is cheap and environmentally friendly, but it has a disadvantage: it is a variable power source. Because wind is not blowing everywhere simultaneously, optimal placement of wind farms can reduce the fluctuations.
This is explored for a small isolated area. Combining wind farms reduces wind power fluctuations for timescales up to 1–2 d. By optimally placing four wind farms, the hourly fluctuations are reduced by 15 %. These wind farms are located distant from each other.
Johan Meyers, Carlo Bottasso, Katherine Dykes, Paul Fleming, Pieter Gebraad, Gregor Giebel, Tuhfe Göçmen, and Jan-Willem van Wingerden
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2271–2306, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2271-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2271-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We provide a comprehensive overview of the state of the art and the outstanding challenges in wind farm flow control, thus identifying the key research areas that could further enable commercial uptake and success. To this end, we have structured the discussion on challenges and opportunities into four main areas: (1) insight into control flow physics, (2) algorithms and AI, (3) validation and industry implementation, and (4) integrating control with system design
(co-design).
Jana Fischereit, Kurt Schaldemose Hansen, Xiaoli Guo Larsén, Maarten Paul van der Laan, Pierre-Elouan Réthoré, and Juan Pablo Murcia Leon
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 1069–1091, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1069-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1069-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Wind turbines extract kinetic energy from the flow to create electricity. This induces a wake of reduced wind speed downstream of a turbine and consequently downstream of a wind farm. Different types of numerical models have been developed to calculate this effect. In this study, we compared models of different complexity, together with measurements over two wind farms. We found that higher-fidelity models perform better and the considered rapid models cannot fully capture the wake effect.
Anna Rutgersson, Erik Kjellström, Jari Haapala, Martin Stendel, Irina Danilovich, Martin Drews, Kirsti Jylhä, Pentti Kujala, Xiaoli Guo Larsén, Kirsten Halsnæs, Ilari Lehtonen, Anna Luomaranta, Erik Nilsson, Taru Olsson, Jani Särkkä, Laura Tuomi, and Norbert Wasmund
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 251–301, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-251-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-251-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
A natural hazard is a naturally occurring extreme event with a negative effect on people, society, or the environment; major events in the study area include wind storms, extreme waves, high and low sea level, ice ridging, heavy precipitation, sea-effect snowfall, river floods, heat waves, ice seasons, and drought. In the future, an increase in sea level, extreme precipitation, heat waves, and phytoplankton blooms is expected, and a decrease in cold spells and severe ice winters is anticipated.
Marcus Reckermann, Anders Omstedt, Tarmo Soomere, Juris Aigars, Naveed Akhtar, Magdalena Bełdowska, Jacek Bełdowski, Tom Cronin, Michał Czub, Margit Eero, Kari Petri Hyytiäinen, Jukka-Pekka Jalkanen, Anders Kiessling, Erik Kjellström, Karol Kuliński, Xiaoli Guo Larsén, Michelle McCrackin, H. E. Markus Meier, Sonja Oberbeckmann, Kevin Parnell, Cristian Pons-Seres de Brauwer, Anneli Poska, Jarkko Saarinen, Beata Szymczycha, Emma Undeman, Anders Wörman, and Eduardo Zorita
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1–80, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
As part of the Baltic Earth Assessment Reports (BEAR), we present an inventory and discussion of different human-induced factors and processes affecting the environment of the Baltic Sea region and their interrelations. Some are naturally occurring and modified by human activities, others are completely human-induced, and they are all interrelated to different degrees. The findings from this study can largely be transferred to other comparable marginal and coastal seas in the world.
Marc Imberger, Xiaoli Guo Larsén, and Neil Davis
Adv. Geosci., 56, 77–87, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-56-77-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-56-77-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Events like mid-latitude storms with their high winds have an impact on wind energy production and forecasting of such events is crucial. This study investigates the capabilities of a global weather prediction model MPAS and looks at how key parameters like storm intensity, arrival time and duration are represented compared to measurements and traditional methods. It is found that storm intensity is represented well while model drifts negatively influence estimation of arrival time and duration.
Viktor J. Bruckman, Gregor Giebel, Christopher Juhlin, Sonja Martens, Antonio P. Rinaldi, and Michael Kühn
Adv. Geosci., 56, 13–18, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-56-13-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-56-13-2021, 2021
Xiaoli G. Larsén and Jana Fischereit
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3141–3158, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3141-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3141-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
For the first time, turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) calculated from the explicit wake parameterization (EWP) in WRF is examined using high-frequency measurements over a wind farm and compared with that calculated using the Fitch et al. (2012) scheme. We examined the effect of farm-induced TKE advection in connection with the Fitch scheme. Through a case study with a low-level jet (LLJ), we analyzed the key features of LLJs and raised the issue of interaction between wind farms and LLJs.
Cited articles
Ali, K., Schultz, D. M., Revell, A., Stallard, T., and Ouro, P.: Assessment of Five Wind-Farm Parameterizations in the Weather Research and Forecasting Model: A Case Study of Wind Farms in the North Sea, Mon. Weather Rev., 151, 2333–2359, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-23-0006.1, 2023. a
Archer, C. L., Wu, S., Ma, Y., and Jiménez, P. A.: Two Corrections for Turbulent Kinetic Energy Generated by Wind Farms in the WRF Model, Mon. Weather Rev., 148, 4823–4835, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-20-0097.1, 2020. a, b
Badger, M., Karagali, I., and Cavar, D.: Offshore wind fields in near-real-time, DTU [data set], https://doi.org/10.11583/DTU.19704883.v1, 2022. a, b
Baidya Roy, S. and Traiteur, J. J.: Impacts of wind farms on surface air temperatures, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 17899–17904, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1000493107, 2010. a
Bärfuss, K., Hankers, R., Bitter, M., Feuerle, T., Schulz, H., Rausch, T., Platis, A., Bange, J., and Lampert, A.: In-situ airborne measurements of atmospheric and sea surface parameters related to offshore wind parks in the German Bight, PANGAEA [data set], https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.902845, 2019. a, b, c, d
Bénard, P., Vivoda, J., Mašek, J., Smolíková, P., Yessad, K., Smith, C., Brožková, R., and Geleyn, J.-F.: Dynamical kernel of the Aladin-NH spectral limited-area model: Revised formulation and sensitivity experiments, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 136, 155–169, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.522, 2010. a
Bengtsson, L., Andrae, U., Aspelien, T., Batrak, Y., Calvo, J., de Rooy, W., Gleeson, E., Hansen-Sass, B., Homleid, M., Hortal, M., Ivarsson, K.-I., Lenderink, G., Niemelä, S., Nielsen, K. P., Onvlee, J., Rontu, L., Samuelsson, P., Muñoz, D. S., Subias, A., Tijm, S., Toll, V., Yang, X., and Køltzow, M. Ø.: The HARMONIE–AROME Model Configuration in the ALADIN–HIRLAM NWP System, Mon. Weather Rev., 145, 1919–1935, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-16-0417.1, 2017. a, b, c, d, e
Bouteloup, Y., Seity, Y., and Bazile, E.: Description of the sedimentation scheme used operationally in all Météo-France NWP models, Tellus A, 63, 300, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2010.00484.x, 2011. a
Cañadillas, B., Foreman, R., Barth, V., Siedersleben, S., Lampert, A., Platis, A., Djath, B., Schulz‐Stellenfleth, J., Bange, J., Emeis, S., and Neumann, T.: Offshore wind farm wake recovery: Airborne measurements and its representation in engineering models, Wind Energy, 23, 1249–1265, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.2484, 2020. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i
Copernicus CMEMS: CMEMS Data Access Portal, http://my.cmems-du.eu/motu-web/Motu (last access: 20 May 2022), 2022. a
Danielson, J. J. and Gesch, D. B.: Global multi-resolution terrain elevation data 2010 (GMTED2010), Tech. rep., Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7J38R2N, 2011. a
de Rooy, W. C. and Siebesma, A. P.: A Simple Parameterization for Detrainment in Shallow Cumulus, Mon. Weather Rev., 136, 560–576, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007MWR2201.1, 2008. a
de Rooy, W. C. and Siebesma, P. A.: Analytical expressions for entrainment and detrainment in cumulus convection, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 136, 1216–1227, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.640, 2010. a
de Rooy, W. C., Siebesma, P., Baas, P., Lenderink, G., de Roode, S. R., de Vries, H., van Meijgaard, E., Meirink, J. F., Tijm, S., and van 't Veen, B.: Model development in practice: a comprehensive update to the boundary layer schemes in HARMONIE-AROME cycle 40, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1513–1543, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1513-2022, 2022. a
Donlon, C. J., Martin, M., Stark, J., Roberts-Jones, J., Fiedler, E., and Wimmer, W.: The Operational Sea Surface Temperature and Sea Ice Analysis (OSTIA) system, Remote Sens. Environ., 116, 140–158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.10.017, 2012. a, b, c
DTU Wind and Energy Systems: https://gitlab.windenergy.dtu.dk/WRF/EWP (last access: 13 April 2024), 2024. a
Fischereit, J., Schaldemose Hansen, K., Larsén, X. G., van der Laan, M. P., Réthoré, P.-E., and Murcia Leon, J. P.: Comparing and validating intra-farm and farm-to-farm wakes across different mesoscale and high-resolution wake models, Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 1069–1091, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1069-2022, 2022b. a
Fischereit, J., Vedel, H., Larsén, X. G., Theeuwes, N. E., Giebel, G., and Kaas, E.: Documentation for Modelling wind farm effects in HARMONIE-AROME, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10700701, 2023. a
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Biavati, G., Horányi, A., Muñoz Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Rozum, I., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Dee, D., and Thépaut, J.-N.: ERA5 hourly data on single levels from 1979 to present, Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS) [data set], https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.adbb2d47, 2018. a, b
HIRLAM consortium, Harmonie System Documentation, Github, https://hirlam.github.io/HarmonieSystemDocumentation, last access: 4 October 2023. a
Hoyer, S. and Hamman, J. J.: xarray: N-D labeled Arrays and Datasets in Python, J. Open Res. Softw., 5, 10, https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.148, 2017. a
Hunter, J. D.: Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment, Comput. Sci. Eng., 9, 90–95, https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55, 2007. a
Iacono, M. J., Delamere, J. S., Mlawer, E. J., Shephard, M. W., Clough, S. A., and Collins, W. D.: Radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases: Calculations with the AER radiative transfer models, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D13103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009944, 2008. a
IRENA: FUTURE OF WIND Deployment, investment, technology, grid integration and socio-economic aspects, Tech. rep., ISBN 9789292601553, https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Oct/IRENA_Future_of_wind_2019.pdf (last access: 22 March 2021), 2019. a
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. a
Kangas, M., Rontu, L., Fortelius, C., Aurela, M., and Poikonen, A.: Weather model verification using Sodankylä mast measurements, Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst., 5, 75–84, https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-5-75-2016, 2016. a
Larsén, X. G. and Fischereit, J.: A case study of wind farm effects using two wake parameterizations in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model (V3.7.1) in the presence of low-level jets, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3141–3158, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3141-2021, 2021. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j
Lascaux, F., Richard, E., and Pinty, J.-P.: Numerical simulations of three different MAP IOPs and the associated microphysical processes, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 132, 1907–1926, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.05.197, 2006. a
Lenderink, G. and Holtslag, A. A.: An updated length-scale formulation for turbulent mixing in clear and cloudy boundary layers, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 130, 3405–3427, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.03.117, 2004. a
Masson, V., Le Moigne, P., Martin, E., Faroux, S., Alias, A., Alkama, R., Belamari, S., Barbu, A., Boone, A., Bouyssel, F., Brousseau, P., Brun, E., Calvet, J.-C., Carrer, D., Decharme, B., Delire, C., Donier, S., Essaouini, K., Gibelin, A.-L., Giordani, H., Habets, F., Jidane, M., Kerdraon, G., Kourzeneva, E., Lafaysse, M., Lafont, S., Lebeaupin Brossier, C., Lemonsu, A., Mahfouf, J.-F., Marguinaud, P., Mokhtari, M., Morin, S., Pigeon, G., Salgado, R., Seity, Y., Taillefer, F., Tanguy, G., Tulet, P., Vincendon, B., Vionnet, V., and Voldoire, A.: The SURFEXv7.2 land and ocean surface platform for coupled or offline simulation of earth surface variables and fluxes, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 929–960, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-929-2013, 2013. a, b
McKinney, W.: Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python, in: Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, edited by: van der Walt, S. and Millman, J., https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a. 2010. a
Met Office: Cartopy: a cartographic python library with a matplotlib interface, http://scitools.org.uk/cartopy/docs/latest/ (last access: 13 april 2024), 2015. a
Nakanishi, M. and Niino, H.: Development of an Improved Turbulence Closure Model for the Atmospheric Boundary Layer, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. Ser. II, 87, 895–912, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.87.895, 2009. a
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Github [code], https://github.com/wrf-model/WRF/tree/v4.2.2 (last access: 13 April 2024), 2021. a
Neggers, R., Köhler, M., and Beljaars, A.: Mass Flux Framework for Boundary Layer Convection. Part I: Transport, J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 1464–1487, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JAS2636.1, 2009. a
Pinty, J.-P. and Jabouille, P.: A mixed-phased cloud parameterization for use in a mesoscale non-hydrostatic model: simulations of a squall line and of orographic precipitation, in: Preprints of Conf. On Cloud Physics, Amer. Meteor. Soc, Everett, WA, 217–220, 1998. a
Platis, A., Siedersleben, S. K., Bange, J., Lampert, A., Bärfuss, K., Hankers, R., Cañadillas, B., Foreman, R., Schulz-Stellenfleth, J., Djath, B., Neumann, T., and Emeis, S.: First in situ evidence of wakes in the far field behind offshore wind farms, Sci. Rep., 8, 2163, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20389-y, 2018. a
Platis, A., Bange, J., Bärfuss, K., Cañadillas, B., Hundhausen, M., Djath, B., Lampert, A., Schulz-Stellenfleth, J., Siedersleben, S., Neumann, T., and Emeis, S.: Long-range modifications of the wind field by offshore wind parks – results of the project WIPAFF, Meteorol. Z, 29, 355–376, https://doi.org/10.1127/metz/2020/1023, 2020. a, b
Pryor, S. C., Shepherd, T. J., Volker, P. J. H., Hahmann, A. N., and Barthelmie, R. J.: ”Wind Theft” from Onshore Wind Turbine Arrays: Sensitivity to Wind Farm Parameterization and Resolution, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 59, 153–174, https://doi.org/10.1175/jamc-d-19-0235.1, 2020. a, b
Schlünzen, K. H. and Sokhi, R. S. (Eds.): Overview of Tools and Methods for meteorological and air pollution mesoscale model evaluation and user training, GAW Report No. 181, World Meteorological Organization, ISBN 978-1-905313-59-4, https://library.wmo.int/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=12628#.YfO4S_sxlhE (last access: 13 April 2024), 2008. a
Shepherd, T. J., Barthelmie, R. J., and Pryor, S. C.: Sensitivity of Wind Turbine Array Downstream Effects to the Parameterization Used in WRF, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 59, 333–361, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0135.1, 2020. a
Siebesma, A. P., Soares, P. M. M., and Teixeira, J.: A Combined Eddy-Diffusivity Mass-Flux Approach for the Convective Boundary Layer, J. Atmos. Sci., 64, 1230–1248, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3888.1, 2007. a
Siedersleben, S. K., Lundquist, J. K., Platis, A., Bange, J., Bärfuss, K., Lampert, A., Cañadillas, B., Neumann, T., and Emeis, S.: Micrometeorological impacts of offshore wind farms as seen in observations and simulations, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 124012, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaea0b, 2018. a
Siedersleben, S. K., Platis, A., Lundquist, J. K., Djath, B., Lampert, A., Bärfuss, K., Cañadillas, B., Schulz-Stellenfleth, J., Bange, J., Neumann, T., and Emeis, S.: Turbulent kinetic energy over large offshore wind farms observed and simulated by the mesoscale model WRF (3.8.1), Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 249–268, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-249-2020, 2020. a, b
Simmons, A. J. and Burridge, D. M.: An energy and angular-momentum conserving vertical finite- difference scheme and hybrid vertical coordinates., Mon. Weather Rev., 109, 758–766, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1981)109<0758:AEAAMC>2.0.CO;2, 1981. a
Skamarock, W. C., Klemp, J. B., Dudhia, J., Gill, D. O., Liu, Z., Berner, J., Wang, W., Powers, J. G., Duda, M. G., Barker, D., and Huang, X.-Y.: A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Model Version 4.1, Tech. rep., https://doi.org/10.5065/1dfh-6p97, 2019. a
Tewari, M., Chen, F., Wang, W., Dudhia, J., LeMone, M. A., Mitchell, K., Ek, M., Gayno, G., Wegiel, J., and Cuenca, R. H.: Implementation and verification of the unified NOAH land surface model in the WRF model, 20th conference on weather analysis and forecasting/16th conference on numerical weather prediction, https://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/users/physics/phys_refs/LAND_SURFACE/noah.pdf (last access: 13 April 2024), 2004. a
Thompson, G., Field, P. R., Rasmussen, R. M., and Hall, W. D.: Explicit Forecasts of Winter Precipitation Using an Improved Bulk Microphysics Scheme. Part II: Implementation of a New Snow Parameterization, Mon. Weather Rev., 136, 5095–5115, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008MWR2387.1, 2008. a
van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., and Varoquaux, G.: The NumPy Array: A Structure for Efficient Numerical Computation, Comput. Sci. Eng., 13, 22–30, https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2011.37, 2011. a
Volker, P. J. H., Hahmann, A. N., Badger, J., and Jørgensen, H. E.: Prospects for generating electricity by large onshore and offshore wind farms, Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 034022, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5d86, 2017. a
Short summary
Wind farms impact local wind and turbulence. To incorporate these effects in weather forecasting, the explicit wake parameterization (EWP) is added to the forecasting model HARMONIE–AROME. We evaluate EWP using flight data above and downstream of wind farms, comparing it with an alternative wind farm parameterization and another weather model. Results affirm the correct implementation of EWP, emphasizing the necessity of accounting for wind farm effects in accurate weather forecasting.
Wind farms impact local wind and turbulence. To incorporate these effects in weather...
