Comprehensive evaluation of typical planetary boundary layer (PBL) parameterization schemes in China – Part 1: Understanding expressiveness of schemes for different regions from the mechanism perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The optimal choice of the planetary boundary layer (PBL) parameterization scheme is of particular interest and urgency to a wide range of scholars, especially for many works involving models. At present, there have been many works to evaluate the PBL schemes. However, little research has been conducted into a more comprehensive and systematic assessment of the performance capability of schemes in key regions of China, especially when it comes to the differences in the mechanisms of the schemes themselves, primarily because there is scarcely sufficient observational data, computer resources, and storage support to complete the work. In this companion paper (i.e., Part 1), four typical schemes (i.e., YSU, ACM2, BL, and MYJ) are selected to systematically analyze and evaluate near-surface meteorological parameters, PBL vertical structure, PBL height (PBLH), and turbulent diffusion coefficient (TDC) in five key regions of China (i.e., North China Plain, NCP; Yangtze River Delta, YRD; Sichuan Basin, SB; Pearl River Delta, PRD and Northwest Semi-arid region, NS) in different seasons (i.e., January, April, July, and October). The differences in the simulated 2 m temperatures between the nonlocal closure schemes are mainly affected by the downward shortwave radiation, but to compare the nonlocal closure schemes with the local closure schemes, the effect of sensible heat flux needs to be further considered. The 10 m wind speed is under the influence of factors like the momentum transfer coefficient and the integrated similarity functions at night. The wind speeds are more significantly overestimated in the plains and basin, while less overestimated or even underestimated in the mountains, as a result of the effect on topographic smoothing in the model. Moreover, the overestimation of small wind speeds at night is attributable to the inapplicability of the Monin–Obukhov similarity theory (MOST) at night. The model captures the vertical structure of temperature well, while the wind speed is outstandingly overestimated below 1000 m, largely because of the TDC. The difference between the MOST and the mixing length theory, PBLH, and Prandtl number is cited as the reason for the difference between the TDC of the YSU and ACM2 schemes. The TDCs of the BL and MYJ schemes are affected by the mixing length scale, which of BL is calculated on the basis of the effect of buoyancy, while MYJ calculates it with the consideration of the effect of the total turbulent kinetic energy. The PBLH of the BL scheme is better than the other schemes because of the better simulation results of temperature. In general, to select the optimal scheme, it is necessary to offer different options for different regions with different focuses (heat or momentum). The first focus is on the temperature field. The BL scheme is recommended for January in the NCP region, especially for Beijing, and the MYJ scheme is better for the other 3 months. The ACM2 scheme would be a good match for the YRD region, where the simulation differences between the four schemes are small. The topography of the SB region is more complex, but for most of the areas in the basin, the MYJ scheme is proposed, and if more stations outside the basin are involved, the BL scheme is recommended. The MYJ scheme is applied to the PRD region in January and April, and the BL scheme in July and October. The MYJ scheme is counseled for the NS region. The second focus is the wind field. The YSU scheme is recommended if the main concern is the near-surface layer, and the BL scheme is suggested if focusing on the variation in the vertical direction. The final evaluation of the parameterization scheme and uncertainties will lay the foundation for the improvement of the modules and forecasting of the GRAPES_CUACE regional model developed independently in China.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".