Evaluation of Urban Canopy Models against Near-Surface Measurements in Houston during a Strong Frontal Passage
Urban canopy models (UCMs) in mesoscale numerical weather prediction models need evaluation to understand biases in urban environments under a range of conditions. The authors evaluate a new drag formula in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model’s multilayer UCM, the Building Effect Parame...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2022-09-01
|
| Series: | Atmosphere |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/13/10/1548 |
| _version_ | 1797475449449742336 |
|---|---|
| author | Eric A. Hendricks Jason C. Knievel |
| author_facet | Eric A. Hendricks Jason C. Knievel |
| author_sort | Eric A. Hendricks |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Urban canopy models (UCMs) in mesoscale numerical weather prediction models need evaluation to understand biases in urban environments under a range of conditions. The authors evaluate a new drag formula in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model’s multilayer UCM, the Building Effect Parameterization combined with the Building Energy Model (BEP+BEM), against both in-situ measurements in the urban environment as well as simulations with a simple bulk scheme and BEP+BEM using the old drag formula. The new drag formula varies with building packing density, while the old drag formula is constant. The case study is a strong cold frontal passage that occurred in Houston during the winter of 2017, causing high winds. It is found that both BEP+BEM simulations have lower peak wind speeds, consistent with near-surface measurements, while the bulk simulation has winds that are too strong. The constant-drag BEP+BEM simulation has a near-zero wind speed bias, while the new-drag simulation has a negative bias. Although the focus is on the impact of drag on the urban wind speeds, both BEP+BEM simulations have larger negative biases in the near-surface temperature than the bulk-scheme simulation. Reasons for the different performances are discussed. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T20:45:16Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-f590cb5b34ba44438274c995ab128948 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2073-4433 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T20:45:16Z |
| publishDate | 2022-09-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Atmosphere |
| spelling | doaj.art-f590cb5b34ba44438274c995ab1289482023-11-23T22:49:53ZengMDPI AGAtmosphere2073-44332022-09-011310154810.3390/atmos13101548Evaluation of Urban Canopy Models against Near-Surface Measurements in Houston during a Strong Frontal PassageEric A. Hendricks0Jason C. Knievel1National Center for Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000, USANational Center for Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000, USAUrban canopy models (UCMs) in mesoscale numerical weather prediction models need evaluation to understand biases in urban environments under a range of conditions. The authors evaluate a new drag formula in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model’s multilayer UCM, the Building Effect Parameterization combined with the Building Energy Model (BEP+BEM), against both in-situ measurements in the urban environment as well as simulations with a simple bulk scheme and BEP+BEM using the old drag formula. The new drag formula varies with building packing density, while the old drag formula is constant. The case study is a strong cold frontal passage that occurred in Houston during the winter of 2017, causing high winds. It is found that both BEP+BEM simulations have lower peak wind speeds, consistent with near-surface measurements, while the bulk simulation has winds that are too strong. The constant-drag BEP+BEM simulation has a near-zero wind speed bias, while the new-drag simulation has a negative bias. Although the focus is on the impact of drag on the urban wind speeds, both BEP+BEM simulations have larger negative biases in the near-surface temperature than the bulk-scheme simulation. Reasons for the different performances are discussed.https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/13/10/1548mesoscale model simulationsurban and boundary layer parameterizationscold front |
| spellingShingle | Eric A. Hendricks Jason C. Knievel Evaluation of Urban Canopy Models against Near-Surface Measurements in Houston during a Strong Frontal Passage Atmosphere mesoscale model simulations urban and boundary layer parameterizations cold front |
| title | Evaluation of Urban Canopy Models against Near-Surface Measurements in Houston during a Strong Frontal Passage |
| title_full | Evaluation of Urban Canopy Models against Near-Surface Measurements in Houston during a Strong Frontal Passage |
| title_fullStr | Evaluation of Urban Canopy Models against Near-Surface Measurements in Houston during a Strong Frontal Passage |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of Urban Canopy Models against Near-Surface Measurements in Houston during a Strong Frontal Passage |
| title_short | Evaluation of Urban Canopy Models against Near-Surface Measurements in Houston during a Strong Frontal Passage |
| title_sort | evaluation of urban canopy models against near surface measurements in houston during a strong frontal passage |
| topic | mesoscale model simulations urban and boundary layer parameterizations cold front |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/13/10/1548 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ericahendricks evaluationofurbancanopymodelsagainstnearsurfacemeasurementsinhoustonduringastrongfrontalpassage AT jasoncknievel evaluationofurbancanopymodelsagainstnearsurfacemeasurementsinhoustonduringastrongfrontalpassage |