Evaluating NCEP Eta Model–Derived Data against Observations

Ismail Yucel Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Search for other papers by Ismail Yucel in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
W. James Shuttleworth Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Search for other papers by W. James Shuttleworth in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
James Washburne Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Search for other papers by James Washburne in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Fei Chen Environmental Modeling Center, Camp Springs, Maryland

Search for other papers by Fei Chen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

Data derived at the National Centers for Environmental Prediction via four-dimensional data assimilation using the Eta Model were evaluated against surface observations from two observational arrays, one located in the semihumid, continental climate of Oklahoma and Kansas and the second in the semiarid climate of southern Arizona. Comparison was made for the period of the Global Energy Water-cycle Experiment Continental-scale International Project’s “GIST” dataset in 1994 and their “ESOP-95” dataset in 1995, and for the months of March and May in 1996. Coding errors in the Eta Model’s postprocessor used to diagnose near-surface temperature and humidity are shown to have compromised the GIST and ESOP-95 near-surface data. A procedure was devised to correct the GIST and ESOP-95 near-surface fields by mimicking the corrected code used in the Eta Model since January 1996. Comparison with observations revealed that modeled surface solar radiation is significantly overestimated except in clear-sky conditions. This discrepancy in cloudy-sky solar radiation was altered little by the substantial January 1996 revisions to Eta Model physics, but the revisions are shown to have greatly improved the model’s ability to capture daily and seasonal variations in near-surface air temperature, specific humidity, and wind speed. The poorly modeled surface radiation complicates evaluation of modeled surface energy fluxes, but comparison with observations suggests that the modeled daytime Bowen ratio may be systematically high. This study clearly demonstrates the strong sensitivity of model-calculated, near-surface variables to the physics used to describe surface interactions in the data assimilation model. To mitigate against this and to aid intercomparisons between other data, it is recommended that model-derived data always include sufficient information to allow potential users to recalculate the extrapolation to the surface using a user-defined model of surface–atmosphere exchanges.

Corresponding author address: Dr. W. James Shuttleworth, Dept. of Hydrology and Water Resources, The University of Arizona, Building 11, Tucson, AZ 85721.

Abstract

Data derived at the National Centers for Environmental Prediction via four-dimensional data assimilation using the Eta Model were evaluated against surface observations from two observational arrays, one located in the semihumid, continental climate of Oklahoma and Kansas and the second in the semiarid climate of southern Arizona. Comparison was made for the period of the Global Energy Water-cycle Experiment Continental-scale International Project’s “GIST” dataset in 1994 and their “ESOP-95” dataset in 1995, and for the months of March and May in 1996. Coding errors in the Eta Model’s postprocessor used to diagnose near-surface temperature and humidity are shown to have compromised the GIST and ESOP-95 near-surface data. A procedure was devised to correct the GIST and ESOP-95 near-surface fields by mimicking the corrected code used in the Eta Model since January 1996. Comparison with observations revealed that modeled surface solar radiation is significantly overestimated except in clear-sky conditions. This discrepancy in cloudy-sky solar radiation was altered little by the substantial January 1996 revisions to Eta Model physics, but the revisions are shown to have greatly improved the model’s ability to capture daily and seasonal variations in near-surface air temperature, specific humidity, and wind speed. The poorly modeled surface radiation complicates evaluation of modeled surface energy fluxes, but comparison with observations suggests that the modeled daytime Bowen ratio may be systematically high. This study clearly demonstrates the strong sensitivity of model-calculated, near-surface variables to the physics used to describe surface interactions in the data assimilation model. To mitigate against this and to aid intercomparisons between other data, it is recommended that model-derived data always include sufficient information to allow potential users to recalculate the extrapolation to the surface using a user-defined model of surface–atmosphere exchanges.

Corresponding author address: Dr. W. James Shuttleworth, Dept. of Hydrology and Water Resources, The University of Arizona, Building 11, Tucson, AZ 85721.

Save
  • Baldwin, M. E., and K. E. Mitchell, 1996: The NCEP hourly multi-sensor U.S. precipitation analysis. Preprints, 11th Conf. on Numerical Weather Prediction, Norfolk, VA. Amer. Meteor. Soc., J95–J96.

  • Beljaars, A. C. M., 1995: The parameterization of surface fluxes in large-scale models under free convection. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,121, 255–270.

  • Berbery, E. H., E. M. Rasmusson, and K. E. Mitchell, 1996: Studies of North American continental-scale v hydrology using Eta model forecast products. J. Geophys. Res.,101, 7305–7321.

  • Betts, A. K., F. Chen, K. Mitchell, and Z. Janjic, 1997: Assessment of the land surface and boundary-layer models in two operational versions of the NCEP Eta Model using FIFE data. Mon. Wea. Rev.,125, 2896–2916.

  • Brutsaert, W. A., 1982: Evaporation into the Atmosphere. Reidel Publishing, 299pp.

  • Chen, F., and Coauthors, 1996: Modeling of land-surface evaporation by four schemes and comparison with FIFE observations. J. Geophys. Res.,101, 7251–7268.

  • ——, Z. Janjic, and K. Mitchell, 1997: Impact of atmospheric surface layer parameterization in the new land-surface scheme of the NCEP mesoscale Eta numerical model. Bound-Layer Meteor.,185, 391–421.

  • Garratt, J. R., 1992: The Atmospheric Boundary Layer. Cambridge University Press, 316 pp.

  • Gutman, G., and A. Ignatov, 1997: Derivation of green vegetation fraction from NOAA AVHRR for use in numerical weather prediction models. Int. J. Remote Sens., in press.

  • Janjic, Z. I., 1990: The step-mountain coordinate: Physical package. Mon. Wea. Rev.,118, 1429–1442.

  • ——, 1994: The step-mountain eta coordinate model: Further development of the convection, viscous sublayer, and turbulence closure schemes. Mon. Wea. Rev.,122, 927–945.

  • Kanamitsu, M., and Coauthors, 1991: Recent changes implemented into the Global Forecast System. Wea. Forecasting,6, 425–435.

  • Lobocki, L., 1993: A procedure for the derivation of surface layer bulk relationships from simplified second-order closure models. J. Appl. Meteor.,32, 126–138.

  • Mahfouf, J. F., and J. Noilhan, 1991: Comparative study of various formulation from bare soil using in situ data. J. Appl. Meteor.,30, 1354–1365.

  • Mesinger, F., 1996: Improvements in quantitative precipitation forecasts with the Eta regional model at the National Centers for Environmental Prediction: The 48-km upgrade. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,77, 2637–2649.

  • Mitchell, K. E., 1994: GCIP initiatives in operational mesoscale modeling and data assimilation at NMC. Preprint, Fifth Conf. on Global Change Studies, Nashville, TN, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 192–198.

  • Pan, H.-L., and L. Mahrt, 1987: Interaction between soil hydrology and boundary-layer development. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,38, 185–202.

  • Paulson, C. A., 1970: The mathematical representation of wind speed and temperature profiles in the unstable atmospheric surface layer. J. Appl. Meteor.,9, 857–861.

  • Peppler, R. A., P. J. Lamb, and D. L. Sisterson, 1996: Site scientific mission plan for the southern Great Plains CART Site: January–June 1996. ARM-96-001, Argonne National Laboratory, 86 pp.

  • Rogers, E., D. G. Decen, and G. J. DiMego, 1995: The regional analysis system for the operational “early” Eta Model: Original 80-km configuration and recent changes. Wea. Forecasting,10, 810–825.

  • Sun, J., and L. Mahrt, 1995: Determination of surface fluxes from the surface radiative temperature. J. Atmos. Sci.,52, 1096–1104.

  • U.S. Department of Energy, 1990: ARM Program Plan, DOE/ER-0441, Washington, DC, 116 pp.

  • Yarosh, E. S., C. F. Ropelewski, and K. E. Mitchell, 1996: Comparison of observations and Eta model analyses and forecast for water balance studies during GIST. J. Geophys. Res.,101, (18), 23 289–23 298.

  • Zilitinkevich, S., 1995: Non-local turbulent transport: pollution dispersion aspects of coherent structure of convective flows. Air Pollution III—Volume I: Air Pollution Theory and Simulation, H. Power, N. Moussiopoulos, and C. A. Brebbia, Eds., Computational Mechanics Publications, 53–60.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 162 73 7
PDF Downloads 67 20 4