Abstract
In this study, an extreme rainfall event that occurred on 25 May 2018 over Shanghai and its nearby area was simulated using the Weather Research and Forecasting model, with a focus on the effects of planetary boundary layer (PBL) physics using double nesting with large grid ratios (15:1 and 9:1). The sensitivity of the precipitation forecast was examined through three PBL schemes: the Yonsei University Scheme, the Mellor–Yamada–Nakanishi Niino Level 2.5 (MYNN) scheme, and the Mellor–Yamada–Janjic scheme. The PBL effects on boundary layer structures, convective thermodynamic and large-scale forcings were investigated to explain the model differences in extreme rainfall distributions and hourly variations. The results indicated that in single coarser grids (15 km and 9 km), the extreme rainfall amount was largely underestimated with all three PBL schemes. In the inner 1-km grid, the underestimated intensity was improved; however, using the MYNN scheme for the 1-km grid domain with explicitly resolved convection and nested within the 9-km grid using the Kain–Fritsch cumulus scheme, significant advantages over the other PBL schemes are revealed in predicting the extreme rainfall distribution and the time of primary peak rainfall. MYNN, with the weakest vertical mixing, produced the shallowest and most humid inversion layer with the lowest lifting condensation level, but stronger wind fields and upward motions from the top of the boundary layer to upper levels. These factors all facilitate the development of deep convection and moisture transport for intense precipitation, and result in its most realistic prediction of the primary rainfall peak.
摘要
本文利用WRF模式对上海地区的一次暖区大暴雨(2018年5月25日)过程采用大比率的双层嵌套网格(15:1或9:1)进行高分辨率(1 km)单向反馈模拟。着重比较YSU、MYJ和MYNN三种不同边界层方案对于高分辨率1 km内网格极端降水预报的影响,并从湍流混合强度、边界层结构、对流热动力条件和大尺度强迫等方面解释了不同边界层方案对极端降水强度和降水日变化模拟差异的可能原因。研究发现在中尺度网格(15km和9km)上,三种边界层方案均严重低估了极端降水主雨带的雨量,且不同边界层方案模拟的极端降水强度差异较小;经中尺度网格降尺度到1km内网格后,上述偏差均得到了改善,并且局地的MYNN边界层方案由于其边界层内热量、动量的湍流垂直混合较弱,能够模拟出更浅且更潮湿的逆温层和更低的抬升凝结高度,进而容易形成不稳定的边界层顶,使得边界层顶到自由大气中高层的风场和垂直上升运动较强,这些因素都有助于深对流的发展和水汽输送的维持,产生较强的降水;与非局地的YSU边界层方案相比,采用局地的MYNN方案能更有效地改善本次降水事件中极端降水主峰值强度和日变化的预报结果。因此,本研究提出基于大比率网格嵌套(15:1或9:1),在母网格采用传统KF对流参数化方案,并且使用局地的MYNN边界层方案,内网格1 km使用EC时,对上海地区极端暴雨的落区、强度以及小时变化具有较好的预报性能。
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barnston, A. G., 1992: Correspondence among the correlation, RMSE, and Heidke forecast verification measures; refinement of the Heidke score. Wea. Forecasting, 7(4), 699–709, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(1992)007<0699:CATCRA>2.0.CO;2.
Beljaars, A. C. M., and P. Viterbo, 1998: Role of the boundary layer in a numerical weather prediction model. Clear and Cloudy Boundary Layers, A. A. M. Holtslag and P G. Duynkerke, Eds., Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 372 pp.
Bonner, W. D., and J. Paegle, 1970: Diurnal variations in boundary layer winds over the south-central united states in summer. Mon. Wea. Rev., 98, 735–744, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1970)098<0735:DVIBLW>2.3.CO;2.
Bougeault, P., and P. Lacarrere, 1989: Parameterization of orography-induced turbulence in a mesobeta-scale model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 117, 1872–1890, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1989)117<1872:POOITI>2.0.CO;2.
Braun, S. A., and W.-K. Tao, 2000: Sensitivity of high-resolution simulations of Hurricane Bob (1991) to planetary boundary layer parameterizations. Mon. Wea. Rev., 128, 3941–3961, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2000)129<3941:SOHRSO>2.0.CO;2.
Burlingame, B. M., C. Evans, and P. J. Roebber, 2017: The influence of PBL parameterization on the practical predictability of convection initiation during the Mesoscale Predictability Experiment (MPEX). Wea. Forecasting, 32, 1161–1183, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-16-0174.1.
Clark, A. J., M. C. Coniglio, B. E. Coffer, G. Thompson, M. Xue, and F. Y. Kong, 2015: Sensitivity of 24-h forecast dryline position and structure to boundary layer parameterizations in convection-allowing WRF model simulations. Wea. Forecasting, 30, 613–638, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-4-00078.1.
Cohen, A. E., S. M. Cavallo, M. C. Coniglio, and H. E. Brooks, 2015: A review of planetary boundary layer parameterization schemes and their sensitivity in simulating southeastern U.S. cold season severe weather environments. Wea. Forecasting, 30, 591–612, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-4-00105.1.
Coniglio, M. C., J. Correia Jr, P. T. Marsh, and F. Y. Kong, 2013: Verification of convection-allowing WRF model forecasts of the planetary boundary layer using sounding observations. Wea. Forecasting, 28, 842–862, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-12-00103.1.
Dong, M. Y., C. X. Ji, F. Chen, and Y. Q. Wang, 2019: Numerical study of boundary layer structure and rainfall after landfall of Typhoon Fitow (2013): Sensitivity to planetary boundary layer parameterization. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 36, 431–450, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-018-7281-9.
Efstathiou, G. A., N. M. Zoumakis, D. Melas, C. J. Lolis, and P. Kassomenos, 2013: Sensitivity of WRF to boundary layer parameterizations in simulating a heavy rainfall event using different microphysical schemes. Effect on large-scale processes. Atmospheric Research, 132–133, 125–143, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2013.05.004.
Fu, S.-M., J.-H. Sun, Y.-L. Luo, and Y.-C. Zhang, 2017: Formation of long-lived summertime mesoscale vortices over central east China: Semi-idealized simulations based on a 14-year vortex statistic. J. Atmos. Sci., 74, 3955–3979, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-16-0328.1.
Holtslag, A. A. M., and Coauthors, 2013: Stable atmospheric boundary layers and diurnal cycles: Challenges for weather and climate models. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94, 1691–1706, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00187.1.
Hong, S.-Y., Y. Noh, and J. Dudhia, 2006: A new vertical diffusion package with an explicit treatment of entrainment processes. Mon. Wea. Rev., 134, 2318–2341, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3199.1.
Hu, X.-M., J. W. Nielsen-Gammon, and F. Q. Zhang, 2010: Evaluation of three planetary boundary layer schemes in the WRF model. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 49, 1831–1844, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JAMC2432.1.
Iacono, M. J., J. S. Delamere, E. J. Mlawer, M. W. Shephard, S. A. Clough, and W. D. Collins, 2008: 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.
Ito, J., H. Niino, M. Nakanishi, and C.-H. Moeng, 2015: An extension of the Mellor-Yamada model to the terra incognita zone for dry convective mixed layers in the free convection regime. Bound.-Layer Meteorol., 157, 23–43, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-015-0045-5.
Janjić, Z. I., 1994: The Step-Mountain Eta Coordinate Model: Further developments of the convection, viscous sublayer, and turbulence closure schemes. Mon. Wea. Rev., 122, 927–945, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1994)122<0927:TSM ECM>2.0.CO;2.
Jiménez, P. A., J. Dudhia, J. F. González-Rouco, J. Navarro, J. P. Montávez, and E. García-Bustamante, 2012: A revised scheme for the WRF surface layer formulation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 140, 898–918, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00056.1.
Kain, J. S., 2004: The Kain-Fritsch convective parameterization: An update. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., 43, 170–181, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(2004)043<0170:TKC-PAU>2.0.CO;2.
Li, X. L., and Z. X. Pu, 2008: Sensitivity of numerical simulation of early rapid intensification of hurricane Emily (2005) to cloud microphysical and planetary boundary layer parameterizations. Mon. Wea. Rev., 136, 4819–4838, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008MWR2366.1.
Liang, X.-Z., Q. Li, H. X. Mei, and M. J. Zeng, 2019: Multi-grid nesting ability to represent convections across the gray zone. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 11, 4352–4376, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001741.
Liu, J. J., F. M. Zhang, and Z. X. Pu, 2017: Numerical simulation of the rapid intensification of Hurricane Katrina (2005): Sensitivity to boundary layer parameterization schemes. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 34, 482–496, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-016-6209-5.
Mellor, G. L., and T. Yamada, 1982: Development of a turbulence closure model for geophysical fluid problems. Rev. Geophys., 20, 851–875, https://doi.org/10.1029/RG020i004p00851.
Monin, A. S., and A. M. Obukhov, 1954: Basic laws of turbulent mixing in the surface layer of the atmosphere. Contrib. Geophys. Inst. Acad. Sci. USSR, 24, 163–187.
Morrison, H., G. Thompson, and V. Tatarskii, 2009: Impact of cloud microphysics on the development of trailing stratiform precipitation in a simulated squall line: Comparison of one- and two-moment schemes. Mon. Wea. Rev., 137, 991–1007, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008MWR2556.1.
Nakanishi, M., and H. Niino, 2004: An improved Mellor-Yamada level-3 model with condensation physics: Its design and verification. Bound.-Layer Meteorol., 221, 1–31, https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BOUN.0000020164.04146.98.
Nakanishi, M., and H. Niino, 2006: An improved Mellor-Yamada level-3 model: Its numerical stability and application to a regional prediction of advection fog. Bound.-Layer Meteorol., 119, 397–407, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-005-9030-8.
Nakanishi, M., and H. Niino, 2009: Development of an improved turbulence closure model for the atmospheric boundary layer. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan, 87, 895–912, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.87.895.
Olson, J. B., J. S. Kenyon, W. M. Angevine, J. M. Brown, M. Pagowski, and K. Sušelj, 2019: A description of the MYNN-EDMF scheme and the coupling to other components in WRF–ARW. NOAA Technical Memorandum OAR GSD-61, 37 pp.
Pleim, J. E., 2007a: A combined local and nonlocal closure model for the atmospheric boundary layer. Part I: Model description and testing. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., 46, 1383–1395, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAM2539.1.
Pleim, J. E., 2007b: A combined local and nonlocal closure model for the atmospheric boundary layer. Part II: Application and evaluation in a mesoscale meteorological model. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., 46, 1396–1409, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAM2534.1.
Qiao, F. X., and X.-Z. Liang, 2017: Effects of cumulus parameterization closures on simulations of summer precipitation over the continental United States. Climate Dyn., 49, 225–247, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3338-6.
Roebber, P. J., D. M. Schultz, B. A. Colle, and D. J. Stensrud, 2004: Toward improved prediction: High-resolution and ensemble modeling systems in operations. Wea. Forecasting, 19, 936–949, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2004)019<0936:TIPHAE>2.0.CO;2.
Shin, H. H., and S.-Y. Hong, 2011: Intercomparison of planetary boundary-layer parametrizations in the WRF model for a single day from CASES-99. Bound.-Layer Meteorol., 139, 261–281, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-010-9583-z.
Skamarock, W. C., and Coauthors, 2008: A description of the advanced research WRF version 3. NCAR/TN-475+STR, 125 pp.
Srinivas, C. V., V. Yesubabu, D. Hari Prasad, K. B. R. R. Hari Prasad, M. M. Greeshma, R. Baskaran, and B. Venkatraman, 2018: Simulation of an extreme heavy rainfall event over Chennai, India using WRF: Sensitivity to grid resolution and boundary layer physics. Atmospheric Research, 210, 66–82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2018.04.014.
Stensrud, D. J., 2007: Parameterization Schemes: Keys to Understanding Numerical Weather Prediction Models. Cambridge University Press, 459 pp.
Stull, R. B., 2011: Meteorology for Scientists and Engineers, 3rd ed., Brooks Cole, 938 pp.
Sukoriansky, S., B. Galperin, and V. Perov, 2005: Application of a new spectral theory of stably stratified turbulence to the atmospheric boundary layer over sea ice. Bound.-Layer Meteorol., 117, 231–257, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-004-6848-4.
Sun, J. H., S. X. Zhao, G. K. Xu, and Q. T. Meng, 2010: Study on a mesoscale convective vortex causing heavy rainfall during the Mei-yu season in 2003. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 27, 1193–1209, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-009-9156-6.
Tewari, M., and Coauthors, 2004: Implementation and verification of the unified NOAH land surface model in the WRF model. Proc. 20th Conf. on Weather Analysis and Forecasting/16th Conf. on Numerical Weather Prediction, Seattle, American Meteorological Society, WA, 11–15.
Wang, H., Y. Q. Wang, and H. M. Xu, 2013: Improving simulation of a tropical cyclone using dynamical initialization and large-scale spectral nudging: A case study of Typhoon Megi (2010). Acta Meteorologica Sinica, 27, 455–475, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-013-0418-y.
Wang, W., and C. Bruyere, 2017: ARW version 3deling system user’s guide. NCAR, 443 pp. [Available online from http://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/users/docs/user_guide_V3.9/contents.html]
Wilks, D. S., 2011: Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences, 3rd ed., Elsevier, 669 pp.
Wisse, J. S. P., and J. V. G. de Arellano, 2004: Analysis of the role of the planetary boundary layer schemes during a severe convective storm. Annales Geophysicae, 22, 1861–1874, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-22-1861-2004.
Wyngaard, J. C., 2004: Toward numerical modeling in the “terra incognita”. J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 1816–1826, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061<1816:TNMITT>2.0.CO;2.
Yan, L. Z., and X. P. Yao, 2019: Structural characteristics of the Yangtze-Huaihe cold shear line over eastern china in summer. Atmosphere, 10(4), 207, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10040207.
Yano, J.-I., P. Bénard, F. Couvreux, and A. Lahellec, 2010: NAM-SCA: A nonhydrostatic anelastic model with segmentally constant approximations. Mon. Wea. Rev., 138, 1957–1974, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009MWR2997.1.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41730646), National Natural Science Foundation for Young Scientists of China (Grant No. 41605079), and the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2018YFC1507702). The FNL Operational Global Analysis data at 1° grids provided by NCEP and used in this study can be found at https://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds083.2/index.html. The ERA-Interim Global Atmospheric Reanalysis Data (0.125° × 0.125° grids) provided by the ECMWF and used to analyze the evolution of horizontal wind speed can be found at https://apps.ecmwf.int/datasets/data/interim-full-daily/levtype=sfc/. The model simulations were conducted at the ECNU Multifunctional Platform for Innovation 001 facilities, and data were deposited in the ECNU public data server (IP 49.52.29.112). The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the sponsoring agencies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Article Highlights
• For a 1-km grid nested in the outer 9-km grid, the MYNN scheme most realistically simulates the extreme rainfall distribution and primary hourly peak.
• Diurnal rainfall simulation is influenced by the choice of PBL scheme and the PBL sensitivities vary as model resolution is increased.
• The MYNN scheme, with the weakest vertical mixing, facilitates more the development of deep convection and intense precipitation.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, R., Zhu, Y., Qiao, F. et al. High-resolution Simulation of an Extreme Heavy Rainfall Event in Shanghai Using the Weather Research and Forecasting Model: Sensitivity to Planetary Boundary Layer Parameterization. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 38, 98–115 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-020-9255-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-020-9255-y