WRF (v4.0)–SUEWS (v2018c) coupled system: development, evaluation and application

Sun, Ting; Omidvar, Hamidreza; Li, Zhenkun; Zhang, Ning; Huang, Wenjuan; Kotthaus, Simone; Ward, Helen C.; Luo, Zhiwen; Grimmond, Sue

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-91-2024

Articles | Volume 17, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-91-2024

© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-91-2024

© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 17, issue 1

Development and technical paper

|

09 Jan 2024

Development and technical paper |

| 09 Jan 2024

WRF (v4.0)–SUEWS (v2018c) coupled system: development, evaluation and application

Ting Sun, Hamidreza Omidvar, Zhenkun Li, Ning Zhang, Wenjuan Huang, Simone Kotthaus, Helen C. Ward, Zhiwen Luo, and Sue Grimmond

Download

Final revised paper (published on 09 Jan 2024)
Preprint (discussion started on 18 Jul 2023)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on gmd-2023-117', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Sep 2023

The manuscript presents the coupling Surface Urban Energy and Water Scheme (SUEWS) into the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. The coupled WRF-SUEWS system shows good performance in simulating fluxes and mixed layer height compared to observations in two UK sites as well as other urban-focused WRF research. The integrated system has also been employed to investigate the impacts of anthropogenic heat flux emissions on the boundary layer dynamics within Greater London. The research is systematically structured and well presented. However, before endorsing for publication, the following points should be addressed:

1. Lines 53-54: Please elucidate the distinction between SUEWS and the land surface mentioned. Does SUEWS replace the entire land surface module in WRF?
2. Lines 217-219: The notation τWREE seems ambiguous. Is it intended to be τWRF? Also, ensure that each term in Eq. 20 is clearly defined, especially if not introduced earlier.
3. Line 245: Table 2 seems to lack blue dots. Are you referring to Figure 6?
4. Figure 6: Is IMP indicative of impervious surfaces? Kindly specify.
5. Lines 275-276: Which observational forcings are utilized for the SUEWS spin-up? Please clarify.
6. Lines 296-298: Could you elaborate on the rationale behind selecting aerosol-derived MLH observation and WRF MH as evaluative metrics for the boundary layer depth?
7. Figure 7: The bulk transmissivity difference seems to rise progressively from sunrise to sunset. Could you elucidate the underlying reason?
8. Lines 345-346: The authors methiond that the offline mode outperforms the online mode due to the model’s performance in incoming shortwave radiation. Given the study's primary objective of evaluating the coupled system (i.e., the online mode), what prompts the emphasis on reducing offline shortwave radiation errors? Would such corrections augment the online mode's efficacy?
9. Lines 358-359: Why does the accurate partitioning of turbulent heat fluxes makes radiation performance less critical?
10. Figure 14: The model seems to inadequately represent the Bowen ratio compared to observations, especially during nights in July and October in SWD. Could you shed light on this inconsistency?
11. Line 391: Change QF to QF?
12. Line 418: Rectify flus to flux.
13. Lines 420-422: The 30% discrepancy in vegetation fraction—does it signify an annual or monthly average? If it's an annual average, could you specify the discrepancy for April? Furthermore, could you expound on the decision to spotlight April when investigating the effects of anthropogenic heat on the atmospheric boundary layer? Are other summer or winter months considered?
14. Figure 16: Please provide more details regarding the computation of anthropogenic heat (QF), particularly the exact meaning of Qmax and Qmin. Furthermore, the use of normalized anthropogenic heat in Figures (a) and (b) is puzzling. This format complicates direct comparisons of anthropogenic heat during daytime and nighttime.
15. Lines 424-425: The air appears to become wetter aloft with PBL as shown in Figure 17.
16. Lines 435-436: Kindly remove the redundant “explored”.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-117-RC1
- AC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-117', Ting Sun, 10 Nov 2023
  
  Dear reviewers,
  Please see attached our response to your comments.
  Many thanks for your evaluation of our work!
  Best,
  Ting on behalf of all co-authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-117-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on gmd-2023-117', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Oct 2023

This manuscript described the structure and key physics of the coupled WRF-SUEWS system，and evaluated WRF-SUEWS at two UK sites and explored its application in modelling dynamics and impacts of anthropogenic heat emissions at the city scale. The topic is very interesting and has important implications in urban climate. However, there are major concerns which lead me to request a minor revision of this manuscript before publish.
The urban boundary layer fluctuates with weather scenario changes, especially for synoptic pattern. Synoptic patterns modulate local weather condition in boundary layer, e.g., SUEWS, boundary layer height, wind, RH and temperature, or even cloud. Therefore, the limitation and applicability of present coupled WRF-SUEWS system should be discussed, especially for some special synoptic patterns.
In addition, for clear sky, the role of AHR and land use and their impacts on local climate in the London should be compared with other regions.

Effects of anthropogenic heat release upon the urban climate in a Japanese megacity

A High-Resolution Monitoring Approach of Canopy Urban Heat Island using Random Forest Model and Multi-platform Observations
Simulating the Regional Impacts of Urbanization and Anthropogenic Heat Release on Climate across China

Modulation of wintertime canopy Urban Heat Island (CUHI) intensity in Beijing by synoptic weather pattern in planetary boundary layer
Moreover, the observed boundary layer height should be described detailly and the accuracy should be pointed out for model validation

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-117-RC2
- AC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-117', Ting Sun, 10 Nov 2023
  
  Dear reviewers,
  Please see attached our response to your comments.
  Many thanks for your evaluation of our work!
  Best,
  Ting on behalf of all co-authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-117-AC1
AC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-117', Ting Sun, 10 Nov 2023

Dear reviewers,
Please see attached our response to your comments.
Many thanks for your evaluation of our work!
Best,
Ting on behalf of all co-authors

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-117-AC1
AC2: 'Revision of gmd-2023-117 (with tracked changes)', Ting Sun, 10 Nov 2023

Dear all,
Please see attached the revision of gmd-2023-117 with tracked changes.
Best,
Ting on behalf of all co-authors

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2023-117-AC2

Peer review completion

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

AR by Ting Sun on behalf of the Authors (10 Nov 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (23 Nov 2023) by Jatin Kala

AR by Ting Sun on behalf of the Authors (23 Nov 2023)

Short summary

For the first time, we coupled a state-of-the-art urban land surface model – Surface Urban Energy and Water Scheme (SUEWS) – with the widely-used Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model, creating an open-source tool that may benefit multiple applications. We tested our new system at two UK sites and demonstrated its potential by examining how human activities in various areas of Greater London influence local weather conditions.