Continuous high resolution mid-latitude belt simulations for July–August 2013 with WRF
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract. The impact of a convection permitting (CP) northern hemisphere latitude-belt simulation with the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model was investigated during the July and August 2013. For this application, the WRF model together with the NOAH land-surface model (LSM) was applied at two different horizontal resolutions, 0.03° (HIRES) and 0.12° (LOWRES). The set-up as a latitude-belt domain avoids disturbances that originate from the western and eastern boundaries and therefore allows to study the impact of model resolution and physical parameterizations on the results. Both simulations were forced by ECMWF operational analysis data at the northern and southern domain boundaries and the high-resolution Operational Sea Surface Temperature and Sea Ice Analysis (OSTIA) data at the sea surface. The simulations are compared to the operational ECMWF analysis for the representation of large scale features. To compare the simulated precipitation, the operational ECMWF forecast, the CPC MORPHing (CMORPH), and the ENSEMBLES gridded observation precipitation data set (E-OBS) were used. Compared to the operational high-resolution ECMWF analysis, both simulations are able to capture the large scale circulation pattern though the strength of the Pacific high is considerably overestimated in the LOWRES simulation. Major differences between ECMWF and WRF occur during July 2013 when the lower resolution simulation shows a significant negative bias over the North Atlantic which is not observed in the CP simulation. The analysis indicates deficiencies in the applied combinations of cloud microphysics and convection parametrization on the coarser grid scale in subpolar regions. The overall representation of the 500 hPa geopotential height surface is also improved by the CP simulation compared to the LOWRES simulation apart across Newfoundland where the geopotential height is higher than in the LOWRES simulation due to a northward shift of the location of the Atlantic high pressure system. Both simulations show higher wind speeds in the boundary layer by about 1.5 m s−1 compared to the the ECMWF analysis. Due to the higher surface evaporation, this results in a moist bias of 0.5 g kg−1 at 925 hPa in the planetary boundary layer compared to the ECMWF analysis. Major differences between ECMWF and WRF occur in the simulation of the 2-m temperatures over the Asian desert and steppe regions. They are significantly higher in WRF by about 5 K both during day- and night-time presumably as a result of different soil hydraulic parameters used in the NOAH land surface model for steppe regions. The precipitation of the HIRES simulation shows a better spatial agreement with CMORPH especially over mountainous terrain. The overall bias reduces from 80 mm at the coarser resolution to 50 mm in the HIRES simulation and the root mean square error is reduced by about 35 % when compared to the CMORPH precipitation analysis. The precipitation distribution agrees much better with the CMORPH data than the LOWRES simulation which tends to overestimate precipitation, mainly caused by the convection parametrization. Especially over Europe the CP resolution reduces the precipitation bias by about 30 % to 20 mm as a result of a better terrain representation and due to the avoidance of the convection parameterization.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».