Measurements and model improvement: Insight into NWP model error using Doppler lidar and other WFIP2 measurement systems

Robert M. Banta 1CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
2NOAA/ Chemical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA

Search for other papers by Robert M. Banta in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Yelena L. Pichugina 1CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
2NOAA/ Chemical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA

Search for other papers by Yelena L. Pichugina in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
W. Alan Brewer 2NOAA/ Chemical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA

Search for other papers by W. Alan Brewer in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Kelly A. Balmes 1CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
3NOAA/ Global Monitoring Laboratory

Search for other papers by Kelly A. Balmes in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Bianca Adler 1CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
4NOAA/ Physical Systems Laboratory

Search for other papers by Bianca Adler in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Joseph Sedlar 1CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
3NOAA/ Global Monitoring Laboratory

Search for other papers by Joseph Sedlar in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Lisa S. Darby 6LDWX LLC, Boulder, CO, USA

Search for other papers by Lisa S. Darby in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
David D. Turner 5NOAA/ Global Sciences Laboratory

Search for other papers by David D. Turner in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Jaymes S. Kenyon 1CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
5NOAA/ Global Sciences Laboratory

Search for other papers by Jaymes S. Kenyon in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Edward J. Strobach 1CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
2NOAA/ Chemical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA

Search for other papers by Edward J. Strobach in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Brian J. Carroll 1CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
2NOAA/ Chemical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA

Search for other papers by Brian J. Carroll in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Justin Sharp 8Sharply Focused LLC, Portland, OR, USA

Search for other papers by Justin Sharp in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Mark T. Stoelinga 10Vaisala, Seattle WA, USA
11ArcVera Renewables, Golden, CO, USA

Search for other papers by Mark T. Stoelinga in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Joel Cline 9NOAA Tropical Program Coordinator, Silver Spring, MD, USA

Search for other papers by Joel Cline in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Harindra J.S. Fernando 7University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA

Search for other papers by Harindra J.S. Fernando in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

Doppler-lidar wind-profile measurements at three sites were used to evaluate NWP model errors from two versions of NOAA’s 3-km-grid HRRR model, to see whether updates in the latest version-4 reduced errors when compared against the original version-1. Nested (750-m-grid) versions of each were also tested to see how grid spacing affected forecast skill. The measurements were part of the field phase of the Second Wind Forecasting Improvement Project (WFIP2), an 18-month deployment into central Oregon/Washington, a major wind-energy producing region. This study focuses on errors in simulating marine intrusions, a summertime, 600-to-800-m deep, regional sea-breeze flow found to generate large errors. HRRR errors proved to be complex and site dependent. The most prominent error resulted from a premature drop in modeled marine-intrusion wind speeds after local midnight, when lidar-measured winds of greater than 8 m s−1 persisted through the next morning. These large negative errors were offset at low levels by positive errors due to excessive mixing, complicating the interpretation of model ‘improvement,’ such that the updates to the full-scale versions produced mixed results, sometimes enhancing but sometimes degrading model skill. Nesting consistently improved model performance, version-1’s nest producing the smallest errors overall. HRRR’s ability to represent the stages of sea-breeze forcing was evaluated using radiation-budget, surface-energy balance, and near-surface temperature measurements available during WFIP2. The significant site-to-site differences in model error and the complex nature of these errors means that field-measurement campaigns having dense arrays of profiling sensors are necessary to properly diagnose and characterize model errors, as part of a systematic approach to NWP model improvement.

© 2023 American Meteorological Society. This is an Author Accepted Manuscript distributed under the terms of the default AMS reuse license. For information regarding reuse and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Robert M. Banta, robert.banta@noaa.gov

Abstract

Doppler-lidar wind-profile measurements at three sites were used to evaluate NWP model errors from two versions of NOAA’s 3-km-grid HRRR model, to see whether updates in the latest version-4 reduced errors when compared against the original version-1. Nested (750-m-grid) versions of each were also tested to see how grid spacing affected forecast skill. The measurements were part of the field phase of the Second Wind Forecasting Improvement Project (WFIP2), an 18-month deployment into central Oregon/Washington, a major wind-energy producing region. This study focuses on errors in simulating marine intrusions, a summertime, 600-to-800-m deep, regional sea-breeze flow found to generate large errors. HRRR errors proved to be complex and site dependent. The most prominent error resulted from a premature drop in modeled marine-intrusion wind speeds after local midnight, when lidar-measured winds of greater than 8 m s−1 persisted through the next morning. These large negative errors were offset at low levels by positive errors due to excessive mixing, complicating the interpretation of model ‘improvement,’ such that the updates to the full-scale versions produced mixed results, sometimes enhancing but sometimes degrading model skill. Nesting consistently improved model performance, version-1’s nest producing the smallest errors overall. HRRR’s ability to represent the stages of sea-breeze forcing was evaluated using radiation-budget, surface-energy balance, and near-surface temperature measurements available during WFIP2. The significant site-to-site differences in model error and the complex nature of these errors means that field-measurement campaigns having dense arrays of profiling sensors are necessary to properly diagnose and characterize model errors, as part of a systematic approach to NWP model improvement.

© 2023 American Meteorological Society. This is an Author Accepted Manuscript distributed under the terms of the default AMS reuse license. For information regarding reuse and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Robert M. Banta, robert.banta@noaa.gov
Save