• Aitken, M. L., M. E. Rhodes, and J. K. Lundquist, 2012: Performance of a wind-profiling lidar in the region of wind turbine rotor disks. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 29, 347355, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00033.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ascione, A., A. Cinque, E. Miccadei, F. Villani, and C. Berti, 2008: The Plio-Quaternary uplift of the Apennine chain: New data from the analysis of topography and river valleys in Central Italy. Geomorphology, 102, 105118, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.07.022.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • A2E, 2017a: wfip2/lidar.z04.b0. A2e Data Archive and Portal for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, accessed 19 December 2017, https://doi.org/10.21947/1418023.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • A2E, 2017b: wfip2/lidarz05.b0. A2e Data Archive and Portal for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, accessed 19 December 2017, https://doi.org/10.21947/1418024.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • A2E, 2017c: wfip2/lidar.z07.b0. A2e Data Archive and Portal for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, accessed 29 March 2018, https://doi.org/10.21947/1402036.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • A2E, 2017d: wfip2/radar.z04.b0. A2e Data Archive and Portal for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, accessed 15 November 2018, https://doi.org/10.21947/1412526.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • A2E, 2017e: wfip2/lidar.z06.b0. A2e Data Archive and Portal for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, accessed 23 November 2018, https://doi.org/10.21947/1349273.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • A2E, 2017f: wfip2/sodar.z09.b0. Maintained by A2e Data Archive and Portal for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, accessed 26 October 2021, https://doi.org/10.21947/1356333.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • A2E, 2017g: wfip2/sodar.16.b0. A2e Data Archive and Portal for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, accessed 25 March 2019, https://doi.org/10.21947/1356340.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • A2E, 2017h: wfip2/radar.z04.b0. A2e Data Archive and Portal for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, accessed 19 November 2018, https://doi.org/10.21947/1412526.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • A2E, 2017i: wfip2/radar.z07.b0. A2e Data Archive and Portal for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, accessed 19 November 2018, https://doi.org/10.21947/1412529.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Banta, R. M., R. K. Newsom, J. K. Lundquist, Y. L. Pichugina, R. L. Coulter, and L. Mahrt, 2002: Nocturnal low-level jet characteristics over Kansas during CASES-99. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 105, 221252, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019992330866.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Banta, R. M., Y. L. Pichugina, N. D. Kelley, R. M. Hardesty, and W. A. Brewer, 2013: Wind energy meteorology: Insight into wind properties in the turbine-rotor layer of the atmosphere from high-resolution Doppler lidar. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94, 883902, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00057.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Banta, R. M., and Coauthors, 2020: Characterizing NWP model errors using Doppler-lidar measurements of recurrent regional diurnal flows: Marine-air intrusions into the Columbia-River basin. Mon. Wea. Rev., 148, 929953, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-19-0188.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Banta, R. M., and Coauthors, 2021: Doppler-lidar evaluation of HRRR-model skill at simulating summertime wind regimes in the Columbia River basin during WFIP2. Wea. Forecasting, 36, 19611983, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-21-0012.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Benjamin, S. G., and Coauthors, 2016: A North American hourly assimilation and model forecast cycle: The Rapid Refresh. Mon. Wea. Rev., 144, 16691694, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-15-0242.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bianco, L., and Coauthors, 2019: Impact of model improvements on 80 m wind speeds during the second Wind Forecast Improvement Project (WFIP2). Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 48034821, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4803-2019.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bingöl, F., J. Mann, and D. Foussekis, 2009: Conically scanning lidar error in complex terrain. Meteor. Z., 18, 189195, https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2009/0368.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bodini, N., J. K. Lundquist, R. Krishnamurthy, M. Pekour, L. K. Berg, and A. Choukulkar, 2019: Spatial and temporal variability of turbulence dissipation rate in complex terrain. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 43674382, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-4367-2019.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bonin, T. A., and W. A. Brewer, 2017: Detection of range-folded returns in Doppler lidar observations. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett., 14, 514518, https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2017.2652360.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bonin, T. A., and Coauthors, 2017: Evaluation of turbulence measurement techniques from a single Doppler lidar. Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 30213039, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-3021-2017.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Draxl, C., and Coauthors, 2021: Mountain waves impact wind power generation. Wind Energy Sci., 6, 4560, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-6-45-2021.

  • James, E. P., and Coauthors, 2022: The High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR): An hourly updating convection-allowing forecast model. Part II: Forecast performance. Wea. Forecasting, 37, 13971417, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-21-0130.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lundquist, J. K., M. J. Churchfield, S. Lee, and A. Clifton, 2015: Quantifying error of lidar and sodar Doppler beam swinging measurements of wind turbine wakes using computational fluid dynamics. Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 907920, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-907-2015.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mass, C. F., M. D. Albright, and D. J. Brees, 1986: The onshore surge of marine air into the Pacific Northwest: A coastal region of complex terrain. Mon. Wea. Rev., 114, 26022627, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1986)114<2602:TOSOMA>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McCaffrey, K., and Coauthors, 2019: Identification and characterization of persistent cold pool events from temperature and wind profilers in the Columbia River basin. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 58, 25332551, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0046.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Olson, J. B., and Coauthors, 2019: Improving wind energy forecasting through numerical weather prediction model development. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 100, 22012220, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0040.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pichugina, Y. L., S. C. Tucker, R. M. Banta, W. A. Brewer, N. D. Kelley, B. Jonkman, and R. K. Newsom, 2008: Horizontal-velocity and variance measurements in the stable boundary layer using Doppler lidar: Sensitivity to averaging procedures. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 25, 13071327, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JTECHA988.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pichugina, Y. L., and Coauthors, 2019: Spatial variability of winds and HRRR–NCEP model error statistics at three Doppler-lidar sites in the wind-energy generation region of the Columbia River basin. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 58, 16331656, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-18-0244.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pichugina, Y. L., and Coauthors, 2020: Evaluating the WFIP2 updates to the HRRR model using scanning Doppler lidar measurements in the complex terrain of the Columbia River Basin. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy, 12, 043301, https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0009138.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rhodes, M. E., and J. K. Lundquist, 2013: The effect of wind-turbine wakes on summertime U.S. Midwest atmospheric wind profiles as observed with ground-based Doppler lidar. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 149, 85103, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-013-9834-x.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sharp, J., and C. Mass, 2002: Columbia Gorge gap flow: Insights from observational analysis and ultra-high-resolution simulation. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 83, 17571762, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477-83.12.1745.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sharp, J., and C. F. Mass, 2004: Columbia Gorge gap winds: Their climatological influence and synoptic evolution. Wea. Forecasting, 19, 970992, https://doi.org/10.1175/826.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shaw, W. J., and Coauthors, 2019: The Second Wind Forecast Improvement Project (WFIP 2): General overview. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 100, 16871699, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0036.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Skamarock, W. C., and Coauthors, 2008: A description of the Advanced Research WRF version 3. NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-475+STR, 113 pp., https://doi.org/10.5065/D68S4MVH.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wharton, S., J. F. Newman, G. Qualley, and W. O. Miller, 2015: Measuring turbine inflow with vertically-profiling lidar in complex terrain. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 142, 217231, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2015.03.023.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wilczak, J. M., and Coauthors, 2019: The Second Wind Forecast Improvement Project (WFIP2): Observational field campaign. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 100, 17011723, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0035.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 361 361 5
Full Text Views 182 182 3
PDF Downloads 194 194 4

Model Evaluation by Measurements from Collocated Remote Sensors in Complex Terrain

Yelena L. PichuginaaCIRES, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado
bNOAA/Chemical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Yelena L. Pichugina in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Robert M. BantaaCIRES, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado
bNOAA/Chemical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Robert M. Banta in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
W. Alan BrewerbNOAA/Chemical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by W. Alan Brewer in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
J. KenyonaCIRES, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado
cNOAA/Global Systems Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by J. Kenyon in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
J. B. OlsoncNOAA/Global Systems Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by J. B. Olson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
D. D. TurnercNOAA/Global Systems Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by D. D. Turner in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
J. WilczakdNOAA/Physical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by J. Wilczak in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
S. BaidaraCIRES, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado
bNOAA/Chemical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by S. Baidar in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
J. K. LundquisteNational Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado
hUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by J. K. Lundquist in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
W. J. ShawfPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington

Search for other papers by W. J. Shaw in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
S. WhartongLawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California

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

Abstract

Model improvement efforts involve an evaluation of changes in model skill in response to changes in model physics and parameterization. When using wind measurements from various remote sensors to determine model forecast accuracy, it is important to understand the effects of measurement-uncertainty differences among the sensors resulting from differences in the methods of measurement, the vertical and temporal resolution of the measurements, and the spatial variability of these differences. Here we quantify instrument measurement variability in 80-m wind speed during WFIP2 and its impact on the calculated errors and the change in error from one model version to another. The model versions tested involved updates in model physics from HRRRv1 to HRRRv4, and reductions in grid interval from 3 km to 750 m. Model errors were found to be 2–3 m s−1. Differences in errors as determined by various instruments at each site amounted to about 10% of this value, or 0.2–0.3 m s−1. Changes in model skill due to physics or grid-resolution updates also differed depending on the instrument used to determine the errors; most of the instrument-to-instrument differences were ∼0.1 m s−1, but some reached 0.3 m s−1. All instruments at a given site mostly showed consistency in the sign of the change in error. In two examples, though, the sign changed, illustrating a consequence of differences in measurements: errors determined using one instrument may show improvement in model skill, whereas errors determined using another instrument may indicate degradation. This possibility underscores the importance of having accurate measurements to determine the model error.

Significance Statement

To evaluate model forecast accuracy using remote sensing instruments, it is important to understand the effects of measurement uncertainties due to differences in the methods of measurement and data processing techniques, the vertical and temporal resolution of the measurements, and the spatial variability of these differences. In this study, three types of collocated remote sensing systems are used to quantify the impact of measurement variability on the magnitude of calculated errors and the change in error from one model version to another. The model versions tested involved updates in model physics from HRRRv1 to HRRRv4, and reductions in grid interval from 3 km to 750 m.

© 2022 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Yelena Pichugina, Yelena.Pichugina@noaa.gov

Abstract

Model improvement efforts involve an evaluation of changes in model skill in response to changes in model physics and parameterization. When using wind measurements from various remote sensors to determine model forecast accuracy, it is important to understand the effects of measurement-uncertainty differences among the sensors resulting from differences in the methods of measurement, the vertical and temporal resolution of the measurements, and the spatial variability of these differences. Here we quantify instrument measurement variability in 80-m wind speed during WFIP2 and its impact on the calculated errors and the change in error from one model version to another. The model versions tested involved updates in model physics from HRRRv1 to HRRRv4, and reductions in grid interval from 3 km to 750 m. Model errors were found to be 2–3 m s−1. Differences in errors as determined by various instruments at each site amounted to about 10% of this value, or 0.2–0.3 m s−1. Changes in model skill due to physics or grid-resolution updates also differed depending on the instrument used to determine the errors; most of the instrument-to-instrument differences were ∼0.1 m s−1, but some reached 0.3 m s−1. All instruments at a given site mostly showed consistency in the sign of the change in error. In two examples, though, the sign changed, illustrating a consequence of differences in measurements: errors determined using one instrument may show improvement in model skill, whereas errors determined using another instrument may indicate degradation. This possibility underscores the importance of having accurate measurements to determine the model error.

Significance Statement

To evaluate model forecast accuracy using remote sensing instruments, it is important to understand the effects of measurement uncertainties due to differences in the methods of measurement and data processing techniques, the vertical and temporal resolution of the measurements, and the spatial variability of these differences. In this study, three types of collocated remote sensing systems are used to quantify the impact of measurement variability on the magnitude of calculated errors and the change in error from one model version to another. The model versions tested involved updates in model physics from HRRRv1 to HRRRv4, and reductions in grid interval from 3 km to 750 m.

© 2022 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Yelena Pichugina, Yelena.Pichugina@noaa.gov
Save