1. Introduction
The planetary boundary layer (PBL) is often capped by pronounced inversions, which in turn may strongly affect the associated dynamics as well as the cloud distribution, cloud thickness, and cloud type. In the case of stratus and stratocumulus clouds considered in this study, a shallow well-mixed boundary layer with a strong low-lying temperature inversion is common. However, it is known that many regional and global models struggle to capture stable boundary profiles and, in particular, sharp inversions (Stevens et al. 2003; Bretherton et al. 2004; Hannay et al. 2009; Wyant et al. 2010; Svensson and Holtslag 2009; Svensson et al. 2011; Holtslag et al. 2013; Sandu et al. 2013).
The vertical extent, height, and strength of the inversion are determined by a balance between the large-scale subsidence and the boundary layer turbulence (Neiburger et al. 1961, 42–55; Stevens 2005). In recent studies it has been suggested that the inability of global- and regional-scale models to simulate stable boundary layer profiles results from the overprediction of the turbulent mixing (Holtslag et al. 2013; Sandu et al. 2013). Parameterizing subgrid-scale mixing, or turbulence, is based on the Reynolds-averaged flow in combination with some closure assumptions for the subgrid-scale fluxes. A common approach is to have a one-dimensional scheme in combination with a flux-gradient approach based on eddy-diffusivity closure (e.g., Cuxart et al. 2006). However, the implementation of such schemes varies considerably between different models, leading to variability in the skill of predicting stable boundary layers (Holtslag et al. 2013). For instance, Sandu et al. (2013) addressed the issue of overprediction of the vertical mixing resulting from the implementation of unsuited (for stable boundary layers) stability functions within the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) model. By changing the profiles of the prescribed stability functions, Sandu et al. observed a significant improvement in the stable PBL profiles, as well as low-cloud cover. However, they also observed a degradation of the large-scale flow when using fixed stability functions.
Buzzi et al. (2011) performed a different study using the regional Consortium for Small Scale Modeling (COSMO) model (Doms and Schättler 2002; Steppeler et al. 2003). In this model the turbulent fluxes are parameterized using the downgradient flux approach with a local closure of eddy diffusivity. In this scheme the vertical profile of the stability functions is explicitly diagnosed for each column, and a minimum threshold on the diagnosed eddy diffusivity is imposed. Buzzi et al. (2011) showed in idealized single-column experiments that the stable PBL structure and inversion were largely sensitive to this prescribed minimal eddy diffusivity. In particular, they found an improved representation of the inversion when this limiter was reduced. Such a limiter on the vertical turbulent flux has been in use in mesoscale models such as the fifth-generation Pennsylvania State University–National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Model (MM5) and the Regional Climate Model (RegCM3).
Another study (Vellore et al. 2007) has also raised the issue of boundary data for simulating marine stable boundary layers with regional models. Vellore et al. analyzed MM5 hindcasts of stable marine boundary layers near the west coast of California and validated them against a comprehensive dataset including buoy, aircraft, satellite, and large eddy simulation (LES) data. They found the simulated inversion strength was underestimated by about 50%, which they believed to be as a result of deficiencies in the prescribed initial conditions from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction–National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP–NCAR; Kalnay et al. 1996) and ECMWF (Uppala et al. 2005) reanalyses, which themselves severely underestimated the inversion. However, the MM5 also imposes a minimum value on the eddy diffusivity of at least 1 m2 s−1, so their forecasts might also be subject to an overprediction of vertical mixing, which depletes their simulated inversion.
Following the findings of Buzzi et al. (2011), we investigated the role of the eddy diffusivity limiter in real-case simulations of stable boundary layers in a real-case simulation. We investigated if a reduction of this limiter would lead to an improved representation of inversion strength, inversion height, and low-cloud cover, and whether it affects the generation and strength of the turbulent kinetic energy distribution within the PBL. Furthermore, we considered the findings of Vellore et al. (2007) and determined the sensitivity of our results to the initial conditions by generating an ensemble of simulations with increasing lead time.
For our simulations we set up a case study in the Bay of Biscay, where a strong inversion of 10–12 K at a height of 500–800 m was observed with widespread stratus and stratocumulus cloud cover. The simulations were validated against soundings from stations located at Brest, France, and A Coruña, Spain, as well as using the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data.
This paper is structured as follows. In section 2 we provide an overview of the COSMO model and the simulation setup, as well as the observations used. The results are then presented in the following section, which includes a discussion of the large-scale flow and predominant subsidence (section 3a), the influence of the eddy-diffusivity limiter (section 3b), the initial conditions (section 3c), the turbulence length-scale parameter (section 3d), and the horizontal resolution (section 3e). In the final section our main results are summarized.
2 Numerical setup and data
a. Model description
For this study the state-of-the-art regional climate and weather prediction model COSMO (version 4.14) was used. The governing equations for the fully compressible flow are discretized in time using a standard third-order Runge–Kutta scheme (Wicker and Skamarock 2002; Foerstner and Doms 2004). The horizontal advection is computed by a fifth-order upstream-biased advection scheme, whereas a centered second-order scheme is applied in the vertical. Moisture variables are advected using a semi-Lagrangian scheme with a multiplicative filling approach to guarantee positive-definite advection. The radiative transfer scheme of Ritter and Geleyn (1992) is used in combination with a relative humidity criterion for determining subgrid-scale cloud cover (CLC).
Instead of a simplified one-moment cloud microphysics scheme, a two-moment approach (Seifert and Beheng 2006; Zubler et al. 2011) was used. This scheme parameterizes droplet nucleation (based on the vertical saturation gradient and vertical velocity), as well as the processes of accretion and autoconversion, self-collection, raindrop breakup, and rain sedimentation for the warm-phase cloud microphysics on the grid scale. A constant cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) concentration of 100 cm−3 was prescribed, which is characteristic of the marine environment (Kubar et al. 2009). Deep and shallow convection are parameterized by the Tiedtke (1989) scheme.
Turbulence parameterization








In the standard setting of the COSMO model, minimum values for
b. Simulation setup
The one-way nested simulations performed at two horizontal resolutions are initialized and driven at the lateral boundaries with the Interim ECMWF Re-Analysis (ERA-Interim; Uppala et al. 2005; Simmons et al. 2007). The low-resolution simulations (0.11° or ~12 km) cover a region from the northeast Atlantic to the eastern boarders of Switzerland and Germany, whereas the high-resolution simulation (0.02° or ~2 km) is centered over the ocean, covering a domain area of 1160 × 800 km2. The computational domains are shown in Figs. 1a,b. For the vertical coordinates, a nonhomogeneous level spacing was used with 13 levels within the first kilometer and at a minimum spacing of 20 m. A time step of 90 s is used in the low-resolution simulation and is reduced to 20 s in the high-resolution simulation. The model setup follows the MeteoSwiss COSMO configuration that is used for the operational forecasting. Whereas both deep and shallow convections are parameterized in the coarse-grid simulation, only shallow convection is parameterized by the reduced Tiedtke scheme in the 2-km simulation, in order to represent convective structures smaller than 12 km (six grid points) in diameter.

(a) Topography (m) at 12-km horizontal resolution and (b) geopotential height contours with the wind field overlain on the 925-hPa surface for the KMIN_1.0L simulation (see Table 1) at 0000 UTC 27 Jan 2003. The red box shows the nested 2-km simulation domain and crosses mark locations of two radiosondes used in this study. (c) Temporal evolution of the horizontally averaged vertical velocity profile. The horizontal average was obtained over the sea grid points of the 2-km domain. (d) PBLH (km) at 1200 UTC 27 Jan 2003 diagnosed by the top of the inversion determined by the temperature gradient (see section 3b for detailed description). White regions in (d) denote areas where the PBLH could not be diagnosed because of an insufficient gradient in temperature.
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1

(a) Topography (m) at 12-km horizontal resolution and (b) geopotential height contours with the wind field overlain on the 925-hPa surface for the KMIN_1.0L simulation (see Table 1) at 0000 UTC 27 Jan 2003. The red box shows the nested 2-km simulation domain and crosses mark locations of two radiosondes used in this study. (c) Temporal evolution of the horizontally averaged vertical velocity profile. The horizontal average was obtained over the sea grid points of the 2-km domain. (d) PBLH (km) at 1200 UTC 27 Jan 2003 diagnosed by the top of the inversion determined by the temperature gradient (see section 3b for detailed description). White regions in (d) denote areas where the PBLH could not be diagnosed because of an insufficient gradient in temperature.
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1
(a) Topography (m) at 12-km horizontal resolution and (b) geopotential height contours with the wind field overlain on the 925-hPa surface for the KMIN_1.0L simulation (see Table 1) at 0000 UTC 27 Jan 2003. The red box shows the nested 2-km simulation domain and crosses mark locations of two radiosondes used in this study. (c) Temporal evolution of the horizontally averaged vertical velocity profile. The horizontal average was obtained over the sea grid points of the 2-km domain. (d) PBLH (km) at 1200 UTC 27 Jan 2003 diagnosed by the top of the inversion determined by the temperature gradient (see section 3b for detailed description). White regions in (d) denote areas where the PBLH could not be diagnosed because of an insufficient gradient in temperature.
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1
In this case study, the sensitivities of the boundary layer and inversion strength on the time of initialization as well as the vertical turbulent mixing were investigated. An overview of the performed simulations can be found in Table 1. In particular, the sensitivities with respect to different values of
List of all simulations performed with distinguishing characteristics (see section 2a for details). Columns are related to horizontal resolution, turbulence parameters [


Table 1 shows the details of the simulations. Most simulations were initialized at 0000 UTC 26 January 2003. However, we also performed an ensemble of simulations with different initialization times between 0000 UTC 24 January and 1200 UTC 26 January 2003.
c. Observational data
The COSMO simulations were compared against two different types of observations. The total cloud cover, obtained by the MODIS satellite (Platnick et al. 2003) and archived at 1-km resolution, provided the horizontal overview. In addition, two radiosonde stations, at Brest and A Coruña, were used that were predominantly exposed to maritime conditions. Radiosonde profiles for θ, relative humidity (RH), and horizontal wind at 0000 and 1200 UTC 27 January 2003 were compared against the simulated profiles within the simulation domain.
3. Results
a. Synoptic conditions and mesoscale forcing
On 26–27 January 2003, the large-scale flow throughout the 12-km and the therein nested 2-km domain was characterized by a high pressure system. This high pressure system was centered to the southwest of the Bay of Biscay, as is shown by the geopotential height at 925 hPa in Fig. 1b. The position and magnitude of the geopotential height, as well as the associated subsidence (Fig. 1c), are to a large extent determined by the driving ERA-Interim.
The large-scale subsidence is strongest during the night where values between −1.5 and −2 cm−1 are seen on 26 and 27 January 2003. At 0900 UTC 27 January there is a synoptic regime change within the 2-km domain, transitioning from a high pressure subsidence to a moderate large-scale ascent (of the order of 0.5–1.5 cm−1). This ascent is caused by a cold front propagating into the domain from the northwest, weakening the influence of the high pressure system that is displaced to the southwest. The position of the cold front can be inferred from Fig. 1d, which shows the diagnosed PBL height (PBLH) at 1200 UTC 27 January 2003. North of about 50°N, one can see a bandlike structure around the geographical position of Ireland, where the PBLH could not be diagnosed because of an insufficient temperature gradient.
Throughout the simulated time period, a maritime northerly flow toward the European landmasses was observed. As can be seen by the wind field at 925 hPa (Fig. 1b), the wind flow is diverted along the Spanish coast resulting from the increase in topography from sea level to 1000 m over a region of 200 km (see Fig. 1a). This diversion of the wind field can be explained by shallow water theory, as we are dealing with a shallow PBL, which is topped by a strong temperature inversion in the maritime domain (see Fig. 2). According to the flow diagnostics of Houghton and Kasahara (1968) for shallow fluid flow incident upon a ridge, the present situation can be classified as a “total blocking” event (i.e., the flow does not overcome the ridge).

(a)–(d) Maximum vertical temperature gradient found within the inversion, as diagnosed from the temperature profiles (see section 3b for details). (e)–(h) PBLH defined by the diagnosed inversion top. Sensitivity of inversion strength and height with respect to
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1

(a)–(d) Maximum vertical temperature gradient found within the inversion, as diagnosed from the temperature profiles (see section 3b for details). (e)–(h) PBLH defined by the diagnosed inversion top. Sensitivity of inversion strength and height with respect to
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1
(a)–(d) Maximum vertical temperature gradient found within the inversion, as diagnosed from the temperature profiles (see section 3b for details). (e)–(h) PBLH defined by the diagnosed inversion top. Sensitivity of inversion strength and height with respect to
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1
This flow diagnostic is based on the values of two nondimensional parameters: the Froude number F0 and a scaled mountain height M. The Froude number is defined as
However, rather than being reflected backward, as is the case in Houghton and Kasahara (1968) for calculations for infinitely long ridges, the flow is deviated along the Spanish coast to lower mountain passes (Fig. 1b). The flow blocking also leads to a lifting of the PBLH in front of the Spanish coast, as can be seen in Fig. 1d.
b. Sensitivity to eddy diffusivity limiter
Here, the sensitivity of the simulated boundary layer structure and cloud formation to the prescribed minimum threshold of the eddy diffusivity for momentum and heat
Throughout much of the maritime domain, no inversion (see Fig. 2a) could be diagnosed in the KMIN_1.0L simulation (
The vertical structure of the inversion layer is shown in Fig. 3. In the KMIN_1.0L simulation the gradient in θ is smoothed considerably throughout the first 2 km of the atmosphere (Fig. 3a). One can observe a constant increase of potential temperature of about 1K (100 m)−1. Consistent with Fig. 2, the inversion gradient increases considerably with the reduction of the eddy diffusivity limiter and the extent of the inversion layer.

The θ cross sections (along black line shown in Figs. 2d,h) for simulations with different
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1

The θ cross sections (along black line shown in Figs. 2d,h) for simulations with different
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1
The θ cross sections (along black line shown in Figs. 2d,h) for simulations with different
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1
At either end of the cross sections, the inversion layer is lifted. The cross sections are oriented perpendicularly to the cold front. The left-hand side of the cross sections passes through the cold front to the southwest of Ireland (see Figs. 2d,h) and the right-hand side crosses the Spanish mainland. On the right-hand side of the cross section, the lifting of the inversion layer is consistent with the diagnosed total blocking (section 3a) of the flow caused by the coastal topography. On the left-hand side it is caused by cold-air advection into the PBL attributed to a cold front, which also weakens the inversion considerably. In addition, one can observe (Fig. 3) that the occurrence of gravity waves triggered by the cold front seems to be affected by
Comparing the simulated CLC for KMIN_1.0L to the retrieved CLC from MODIS, throughout the domain of strong inversions at the PBLH, it is clear that cloud cover was generally severely underestimated (Figs. 4a,b). The polar-orbiting satellite MODIS, which passed over the Bay of Biscay at 1200 UTC 27 January, can be used for the evaluation of low-level cloud cover since no high-level clouds were present in these regions according to the observed cloud-top temperature. For a fair comparison of the retrieval with the four simulations with varied

(a) MODIS total CLC is compared against low CLC (below 800 hPa) at 0000 UTC 27 Jan 2003 for (b) KMIN_1.0L, (c) KMIN_0.4L, (d) KMIN_0.1L, and (e) KMIN_0.01L. The resolution of the MODIS retrieval has been reduced to 12 km to match the horizontal resolution of the simulations.
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1

(a) MODIS total CLC is compared against low CLC (below 800 hPa) at 0000 UTC 27 Jan 2003 for (b) KMIN_1.0L, (c) KMIN_0.4L, (d) KMIN_0.1L, and (e) KMIN_0.01L. The resolution of the MODIS retrieval has been reduced to 12 km to match the horizontal resolution of the simulations.
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1
(a) MODIS total CLC is compared against low CLC (below 800 hPa) at 0000 UTC 27 Jan 2003 for (b) KMIN_1.0L, (c) KMIN_0.4L, (d) KMIN_0.1L, and (e) KMIN_0.01L. The resolution of the MODIS retrieval has been reduced to 12 km to match the horizontal resolution of the simulations.
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1
However, there is a noticeable structure of cloud lines within an otherwise cloud-free region visible in the satellite retrieval, which is not captured by the simulations. These streaks can be identified as ship tracks, which have been shown to be an aerosol-induced phenomenon (Bowley 1967; Durkee et al. 2000). The current simulations were carried out with constant CCN concentrations, and time-varying aerosol effects were ignored. Hence, these ship emission effects could not be captured in these simulations, but will be addressed in future work.
For a more detailed analysis of the effects of

RH, θ, and horizontal wind profiles from left to right for (a)–(c) 0000 and (d)–(f) 1200 UTC 27 Jan 2003 at Brest. The radiosonde soundings are denoted by black dashed lines in (a),(b),(d),(e) and are shown in the first column in (c) and (f). Simulated profiles at the nearest grid point on land to the radiosonde’s location are shown for the simulations with varied
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1

RH, θ, and horizontal wind profiles from left to right for (a)–(c) 0000 and (d)–(f) 1200 UTC 27 Jan 2003 at Brest. The radiosonde soundings are denoted by black dashed lines in (a),(b),(d),(e) and are shown in the first column in (c) and (f). Simulated profiles at the nearest grid point on land to the radiosonde’s location are shown for the simulations with varied
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1
RH, θ, and horizontal wind profiles from left to right for (a)–(c) 0000 and (d)–(f) 1200 UTC 27 Jan 2003 at Brest. The radiosonde soundings are denoted by black dashed lines in (a),(b),(d),(e) and are shown in the first column in (c) and (f). Simulated profiles at the nearest grid point on land to the radiosonde’s location are shown for the simulations with varied
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1

As Fig. 5, but for the A Coruña radiosonde station.
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1

As Fig. 5, but for the A Coruña radiosonde station.
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1
As Fig. 5, but for the A Coruña radiosonde station.
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1

Evolution of TKE in the PBL at (a)–(d) Brest and (e)–(h) A Coruña for simulations with different
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1

Evolution of TKE in the PBL at (a)–(d) Brest and (e)–(h) A Coruña for simulations with different
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1
Evolution of TKE in the PBL at (a)–(d) Brest and (e)–(h) A Coruña for simulations with different
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1
The exceptionally strong inversion at Brest at 0000 UTC is strongly underestimated in both the KMIN_1.0L and KMIN_0.4L simulations, but well captured by the two simulations with reduced eddy diffusivity limiters of 0.1 and 0.01 m2 s−1. The deficiencies of the simulated θ profiles for the KMIN_1.0L and KMIN_0.4L simulations are also mirrored in the RH profiles, where one observes a too dry upper PBL (by ~15%) and a too moist free troposphere above (15%–30%). On the other hand, the KMIN_0.1L and KMIN_0.01L simulations better capture the moisture decoupling. The decoupling of the horizontal wind profile is equally well captured at Brest at 0000 UTC in all four simulations.
These results are consistent with the previous findings presented in Figs. 2 and 4 and reiterate the strong influence of
The decoupled boundary layer structure observed at A Coruña at 0000 UTC is not captured in the simulations. Looking at the RH profile, the decoupling is probably as a result of underlying cumulus clouds feeding the stratocumulus cloud deck above, which is consistent with the findings of previous studies (e.g., Serpetzoglou et al. 2008). This indicates that the simulation of decoupled boundary layers remains as a difficult issue independent of the values chosen for
Further understanding of the results on a process level can be obtained from the evolution of the vertical TKE profiles shown in Fig. 7. Here, clear differences between the strength of the TKE and the turbulence structure are observed for simulations of varied
Consistent with the prescribed high minimum value for eddy diffusivity, higher values of TKE are generated over a greater vertical extent in the KMIN_1.0L simulation (Figs. 7a,e). Furthermore, TKE is generated far above the grid-scale clouds shown in Fig. 7a. This is attributable to subgrid-scale clouds (not shown) that continue forming higher up in the troposphere. At Brest these clouds form up to a height of 2 km, where RH is still as high as 75%. Between the KMIN_0.4L (Figs. 7b,f) and KMIN_0.1L (Figs. 7c,g) simulations, minor differences in structure as well as magnitude of TKE are found. In both simulations one can observe a reduction of TKE between the regions of TKE generation at the surface and at cloud top. However for
The range of TKE in all simulations where
c. Sensitivity to initial conditions
Here, we consider an ensemble of simulations in order to assess the level of predictability, the dependency on the initial boundary conditions, and the associated uncertainties of our results. To this end, we considered six hindcasts with a resolution of 12 km that were initialized between 0000 UTC 24 January and 1200 UTC 26 January. While all simulations use the same lateral boundary conditions, this setup serves well in generating perturbations that might lead to mesoscale differences (Hohenegger and Schär 2007). Indeed, the large-scale subsidence was found to be reduced in simulations with longer lead times. In the KMIN_2400L simulation the subsidence (not shown) between 2100 UTC 26 January and 0900 UTC 27 January was reduced from a range of [−1.5, −2] to [−0.75, −1] cm s−1 in the upper troposphere.
In Brest, the simulated profiles at 0000 UTC (Figs. 8a,b) and 1200 UTC (not shown) agree well with each other, independently of their time of initialization. Very little variation is observed in the wind fields. In the θ profiles, one notices a slight vertical shift of the inversion of approximately 150 m between simulations started at 0000 and 1200 UTC 24 January and 0000 UTC 25 January, and simulations started thereafter. This upward shift of the earlier initialized simulations increased to about 300 m at 1200 UTC and seems to coincide with the weaker subsidence predicted in simulations initialized prior to 0000 UTC 25 January. The inversion gradient on the other hand is equally strong in all simulations.

Sensitivity of the KMIN_0.01L simulation to different initial conditions. Initial conditions vary between 0000 UTC 24 Jan and 1200 UTC 26 Jan 2003 (see Table 1). The simulated profiles are shown at 0000 UTC 27 Jan with lead times of 12–72 h at (a)–(c) Brest and (d)–(f) A Coruña. The ERA-Interim is shown as a solid black line.
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1

Sensitivity of the KMIN_0.01L simulation to different initial conditions. Initial conditions vary between 0000 UTC 24 Jan and 1200 UTC 26 Jan 2003 (see Table 1). The simulated profiles are shown at 0000 UTC 27 Jan with lead times of 12–72 h at (a)–(c) Brest and (d)–(f) A Coruña. The ERA-Interim is shown as a solid black line.
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1
Sensitivity of the KMIN_0.01L simulation to different initial conditions. Initial conditions vary between 0000 UTC 24 Jan and 1200 UTC 26 Jan 2003 (see Table 1). The simulated profiles are shown at 0000 UTC 27 Jan with lead times of 12–72 h at (a)–(c) Brest and (d)–(f) A Coruña. The ERA-Interim is shown as a solid black line.
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1
These results show that the model was able to form and maintain as strong an inversion as was observed at Brest for a variety of initial conditions and simulated subsidence. Nonetheless, the inversion might still be sensitive to some extent to the reanalysis used (Vellore et al. 2007). However, investigating the effect of a wider range of initialization PBL profiles from different reanalyzes is beyond the scope of this study. The panels in Fig. 8 show the PBL profiles according to the driving ERA-Interim. Hence, we can demonstrate in this study that the simulation of the inversion is successful despite its strong underestimation in the driving lateral boundary data.
The lifting of the PBLH can also be observed throughout the maritime domain depicted in the previous figure shown in section 3b. In both Figs. 2 and 3 one also sees a lifting of the boundary layer at 1200 UTC 27 January ahead of the cold front. Although the cold front itself progressed in the same manner in all simulations, the extent of the prefrontal lifting is seen to be increased with larger lead times. In the KMIN_2400L simulation this lifting of the PBLH to 1–1.4 km reaches as far as the northwestern tip of the Spanish coast, but does not affect the northern part of the Bay of Biscay as strongly. This suggests that the formation of a stronger transverse ageostrophic circulation pattern across the cold front (Holton 1992, 267–270) is seen in simulations with longer lead times, which is in agreement with the weaker simulated subsidence.
At A Coruña (Figs. 8d,e), there are significant differences at 0000 UTC 27 January between simulations with different initial conditions. Inversion strength, height, and the vertical wind profiles of the horizontal wind vary significantly between the simulations. The double inversion and the associated turbulent decoupling of the boundary layer are not captured by the simulations. Nonetheless, one could argue that all of the simulations apart from KMIN_2400L and KMIN_2412L are performing better with respect to inversion extent and vertical position than the driving ERA-Interim at 1200 UTC 27 January.
d. Sensitivity to the turbulence length scale
The sensitivity of the PBL structure to the fundamental turbulent length scale, which is set by the tur_len parameter, was analyzed for tur_len = {500, 150, 60} m. To assess the impact of this parameter on the development of the parameterized PBL turbulence and simulated boundary layer profiles, we chose the
As can be seen in Fig. 9, little difference can be found between the TURL_60L simulation and the KMIN_0.01L simulation, where tur_len was set to 150 m. The maximum temperature gradient within the inversion over the maritime domain is almost identical in both simulations, as are the θ and RH profiles at Brest and A Coruña for 0000 UTC. In agreement to these findings, we also observe no significant changes in the TKE patterns at the radiosonde locations (not shown) as we reduced tur_len from 150 to 60 m. However, the magnitude of the TKE was reduced by about 30% because of the reduction of tur_len.

Sensitivity of
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1

Sensitivity of
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1
Sensitivity of
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1
On the other hand, increasing tur_len to its operational value of 500 m reduces the inversion strength significantly. The maximum temperature gradient is reduced by up to 1 K (100 m)−1 (Fig. 9a). The simulated inversion is nevertheless strong enough for low-cloud formation, as the cloud cover (not shown) was not significantly changed by tur_len. Looking at the PBL profiles at Brest, one observes a weaker inversion at 0000 UTC as well as a corresponding weakened moisture decoupling. The θ and RH profiles at A Coruña are not strongly affected. Increasing tur_len to 500 m leads to a stronger production of TKE throughout the boundary layer. Particularly high values of over 5 m2 s−1 were reached in the TURL_500L simulation at the cloud top.
These results suggest that the inversion strength is sensitive to tur_len. In particular, one has to care not to choose high values for tur_len. In the case of a shallow boundary layer with a depth between 500 and 800 m within the maritime subsidence domain, it might not be surprising that a value of 500 m for tur_len leads to a degrading of the inversion. Finally, it should be noted that no sensitivity to tur_len was observed in the KMIN_1.0L simulation. Therefore,
e. Sensitivity to horizontal resolution
We tested whether the simulated PBL structure and the influence of

Sensitivity of
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1

Sensitivity of
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1
Sensitivity of
Citation: Weather and Forecasting 29, 2; 10.1175/WAF-D-13-00039.1
The strong inversion at Brest was equally well captured by KMIN_0.01H and KMIN_0.01L and strongly underestimated to the same extent by KMIN_1.0H and KMIN_1.0L. The equivalent simulated PBL structures of the 12- and 2-km simulations were also found at 1200 UTC at Brest (not shown), as well as in A Coruña. Considering that the key processes of stratocumulus formation are parameterized at both 2- and 12-km scales, this might not be surprising. One needs to access considerably higher horizontal and vertical resolutions in order to physically resolve turbulent and convective processes for stratified PBLs (Mason 1989; Stevens et al. 1998; Siebesma et al. 2003). Therefore, increasing the horizontal resolution has no impact on the model’s ability to simulate the observed decoupled boundary layer.
4. Conclusions
Forecasting shallow boundary layers with strong capping inversions has been a challenge for many regional and global models. To analyze this problem, we set up a case study, and based on process or subjective understanding, we isolated the problems that are commonly experienced by mesoscale models. Large-scale subsidence and turbulence have previously been identified as the main drivers of inversion formation. In this study we investigated whether the simulated inversion is sensitive to parameters used within the turbulence parameterization and if their modification within a range of physical limits would lead to an improved simulation of the inversion. In particular, we investigated the effect of two key turbulence parameters: minimum vertical diffusion
We used the COSMO model in this study, which was set to run at two horizontal resolutions (2 and 12 km) and 13 vertical levels focused in the lowest kilometer. In particular, PBL profiles were verified with Brest and A Coruña soundings and horizontal cloud cover by using MODIS.
The key findings of this study are summarized as follow:
Turbulent vertical mixing is crucial for the thermodynamic PBL structure. One has to take extreme precaution when introducing flux limiters such as
into the turbulence formulation, as the PBL profile is found to be largely sensitive to this parameter.Despite the evident dependency on parameterizations, nocturnal inversions of 10–12 K were accurately predicted with lead times between 24 and 72 h, provided small values of
were used.The inversion height, inversion strength, and cloud distribution below the inversion were obtained with identical quality in simulations performed at the mesoscale (12 km) and cloud-resolving scale (2 km).
Although one seems to have improved the model’s ability to simulate inversions and to maintain sharp inversion gradients, the process of decoupling in a stable boundary layer remains a difficult issue. Our simulations show that the model in principle is capable of simulating such boundary layers, but not adequately enough to reproduce the shallow decoupled boundary layers.
Acknowledgments
We thank the COSMO consortium for access to the code, the German Weather Service (DWD) and MeteoSwiss for code maintenance and setup, C2SM for source code support, and the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre (CSCS) for providing a simulation platform. In particular, we thank Dr. Dani Lüthi for his help on data handling and Anne Roches for technical support. Finally, we thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments.
REFERENCES
Blackadar, A. K., 1962: The vertical distribution of wind and turbulent exchange in a neutral atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res., 67, 3095–3102, doi:10.1029/JZ067i008p03095.
Bowley, C. J., 1967: Comments on atmospheric requirements for the genesis of anomalous cloud lines. J. Atmos. Sci., 24, 596–597, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024<0596:COARFT>2.0.CO;2.
Bretherton, C. S., and Coauthors, 2004: The EPIC 2001 stratocumulus study. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 85, 967–977, doi:10.1175/BAMS-85-7-967.
Buzzi, M., Rottach M. W. , Raschendorfer M. , and Holstag A. A. M. , 2011: Evaluation of the COSMO-SC turbulence scheme in a shear-driven stable boundary layer. Meteor. Z., 20, 335–350, doi:10.1127/0941-2948/2011/0050.
Cuxart, J., and Coauthors, 2006: Single-column model intercomparison for a stably stratified atmospheric boundary layer. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 118, 273–303, doi:10.1007/s10546-005-3780-1.
de Roode, S., 1999: Cloudy boundary layers: Observations and mass-flux parameterizations. Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands, 193 pp.
de Roode, S., and Duynkerke P. G. , 1997: Observed Lagrangian transition of stratocumulus into cumulus during ASTEX: Mean state turbulence structure. J. Atmos. Sci., 54, 2157–2173, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1997)054<2157:OLTOSI>2.0.CO;2.
Doms, G., and Schättler U. , 2002: A description of the nonhydrostatic regional model LM. Part I: Dynamics and numerics. Deutscher Wetterdienst Tech. Rep., Offenbach, Germany, 134 pp.
Durkee, P. A., Noone K. J. , and Bluth R. T. , 2000: The Monterey Area Ship Track Experiment. J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 2523–2541, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(2000)057<2523:TMASTE>2.0.CO;2.
Foerstner, J., and Doms G. , 2004: Runge–Kutta time integration and high-order spatial discretization of advection—A new dynamical core for the LMK. COSMO Newsletter, No. 4, Consortium for Small Scale Modeling, Deutscher Wetterdienst, Offenbach, Germany, 168–176. [Available online at http://www.cosmo-model.org/content/model/documentation/newsLetters/newsLetter04/chp9-6.pdf.]
Geer, I. W., 1996: Glossary of Weather and Climate with Related Oceanic and Hydrologic Terms. 1st ed. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 228 pp.
Hannay, C., Williamson D. L. , Hack J. J. , Kiehl J. T. , and Olson J. G. , 2009: Evaluation of forecasted southeast Pacific stratocumulus in the NCAR, GFDL, and ECMWF models. J. Climate, 22, 2871–2889, doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2479.1.
Hohenegger, C., and Schär C. , 2007: Atmospheric predictability at synoptic versus cloud-resolving scales. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88, 1783–1793, doi:10.1175/BAMS-88-11-1783.
Holton, J. R., 1992: An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology. 3rd ed. Academic Press, 511 pp.
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, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00187.1.
Houghton, D. D., and Kasahara A. , 1968: Nonlinear shallow fluid flow over an isolated ridge. Commun. Pure Appl. Math., XXI, 1–23, doi:10.1002/cpa.3160210103.
Kalnay, E., and Coauthors, 1996: The NCEP/NCAR 40-Year Reanalysis Project. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 77, 437–471, doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1996)077<0437:TNYRP>2.0.CO;2.
Kubar, T. L., Hartmann D. L. , and Wood R. , 2009: Understanding the importance of microphysics and macrophysics for warm rain in marine low clouds. Part I: Satellite observations. J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 2953–2972, doi:10.1175/2009JAS3071.1.
Mason, P. J., 1989: Large-eddy simulation of the convective atmospheric boundary layer. J. Atmos. Sci., 46, 1492–1516, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1989)046<1492:LESOTC>2.0.CO;2.
Mellor, G. L., and Yamada T. , 1974: A hierarchy of turbulent closure models for planetary boundary layers. J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 1791–1806, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1974)031<1791:AHOTCM>2.0.CO;2.
Mellor, G. L., and Yamada T. , 1982: Development of a turbulence closure model for geophysical flow problems. Rev. Geophys. Space Phys., 20, 851–875, doi:10.1029/RG020i004p00851.
Moeng, C.-H., and Coauthors, 1996: Simulation of a stratocumulus topped planetary boundary layer: Intercomparison among different numerical codes. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 77, 261–278, doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1996)077<0261:SOASTP>2.0.CO;2.
Neiburger, M., Johnson D. S. , and Chien C. , 1961: Studies of the Structure of the Atmosphere over the Eastern Pacific Ocean in Summer. 1st ed. University of California Press, 94 pp.
Platnick, S., King M. D. , Ackermann S. A. , Menzel W. P. , Baum B. A. , Riedi J. C. , and Frey R. A. , 2003: The MODIS cloud products: Algorithms and examples from Terra. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 41, 459–473, doi:10.1109/TGRS.2002.808301.
Ritter, B., and Geleyn J. F. , 1992: A comprehensive radiation scheme for numerical weather prediction models with potential applications in climate simulations. Mon. Wea. Rev., 120, 303–325, doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1992)120<0303:ACRSFN>2.0.CO;2.
Sandu, I., Beljaars A. , Bechtold P. , Mauritsen T. , and Balsamo G. , 2013: Why is it so difficult to represent stably stratified conditions in numerical weather prediction NWP models? J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst.,5, 117–133, doi:10.1002/jame.20013.
Seifert, A., and Beheng K. D. , 2006: A two-moment cloud microphysics parameterization for mixed-phase clouds. Part 1: Model description. Meteor. Atmos. Phys., 92, 45–66, doi:10.1007/s00703-005-0112-4.
Serpetzoglou, E., Albrecht B. A. , Kollias P. , and Fairall C. W. , 2008: Boundary layer, cloud and drizzle variability in the southeast Pacific stratocumulus regime. J. Climate, 21, 6191–6214, doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2186.1.
Siebesma, A. P., and Coauthors, 2003: A large eddy simulation intercomparison study of shallow cumulus convection. J. Atmos. Sci., 60, 1201–1219, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(2003)60<1201:ALESIS>2.0.CO;2.
Simmons, A. J., Uppala S. , Dee D. , and Kobayashi S. , 2007: ERA-Interim: New ECMWF reanalysis products from 1989 onwards. ECMWF Newsletter, No. 110, ECMWF, Reading, United Kingdom, 25–35. [Available online at http://www.ecmwf.int.]
Steppeler, J., Doms G. , Schättler U. , Bitzer H. W. , Gassmann A. , Damrath U. , and Gregoric G. , 2003: Meso-gamma scale forecasts using the nonhydrostatic model LM. Meteor. Atmos. Phys., 82, 75–96, doi:10.1007/s00703-001-0592-9.
Stevens, B., 2005: Atmospheric moist convection. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 33, 605–643, doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.33.092203.122658.
Stevens, B., Cotton W. R. , Feingold G. , and Moeng C. H. , 1998: Large-eddy simulations of strongly precipitating, shallow, stratocumulus-topped boundary layers. J. Atmos. Sci., 55, 3616–3638, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1998)055<3616:LESOSP>2.0.CO;2.
Stevens, B., and Coauthors, 2003: Dynamics and chemistry of marine stratocumulus—DYCOMS-II. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 579–593, doi:10.1175/BAMS-84-5-579.
Stull, R. B., 2009: An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology. 1st ed. Springer, 670 pp.
Svensson, G., and Holtslag A. , 2009: Analysis of model results for the turning of wind and related momentum fluxes and depth of the stable boundary layer. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 132, 261–277, doi:10.1007/s10546-009-9395-1.
Svensson, G., and Coauthors, 2011: Evaluation of the diurnal cycle in the atmospheric boundary layer over land as represented by a variety of single-column models: The second GABLS experiment. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 140, 177–206, doi:10.1007/s10546-011-9611-7.
Tiedtke, M., 1989: A comprehensive mass flux scheme for cumulus parameterization in large-scale models. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 117, 1779–1800.
Uppala, S. M., and Coauthors, 2005: The ERA-40 Re-Analysis. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,131, 2961–3012, doi:10.1256/qj.04.176.
Vellore, R., Karoĉin D. , Wetzel M. , Chai S. , and Wang Q. , 2007: Challenges in mesoscale prediction of a nocturnal stratocumulus-topped marine boundary layer and implications for operational forecasting. Wea. Forecasting, 22, 1101–1122, doi:10.1175/WAF1029.1.
Wicker, L. J., and Skamarock W. C. , 2002: Time-splitting methods for elastic models using forward time schemes. Mon. Wea. Rev., 130, 2088–2097, doi:10.1175/1520-0493(2002)130<2088:TSMFEM>2.0.CO;2.
Wyant, M. C., and Coauthors, 2010: The PreVOCA experiment: Modeling the lower troposphere in the southeast Pacific. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 4757–4774, doi:10.5194/acp-10-4757-2010.
Zubler, E., Folini D. , Lohmann U. , Lüthi D. , Mühlbauer A. , Pousse-Nottelmann S. , Schär C. , and Wild M. , 2011: Implementation and evaluation of aerosol and cloud microphysics in a regional climate model. J. Geophys. Res., 116, D02211, doi:10.1029/2010JD014572.