[Wrf-users] WRF sea breeze

[Pat Welsh]

Patrick, and all sea breeze modelers,

We here in Florida have a strong desire and some experience trying to get
the sea breeze right.   For over half the year we are in a weak synoptic
regime where jet stream dynamics play virtually no part in our daily weather
(OK, so we do occasionally get a front even in the summer) but the seabreeze
convection brings diurnal thunderstorm somewhere in the state.

Here are some good references:
Pete Bogenschutz M. S. Thesis
http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11122004-131729/

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jax/research/Welsh_NWP50_WFO_WRFfinal.pdf

Southeast WRF verification
http://www.dtcenter.org/visitor_program/visitors.05_06/reports/pbogen_DTCreu
nion.pdf

Etherton and Santos 2008
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2007W
AF2006115.1&ct=1


Regards,


Pat Welsh
University of North Florida

On 9/30/08 5:35 AM, "preuter at labri.fr" <preuter at labri.fr> wrote:

> Dear Dorita and Mikhail,
> 
> I am also studying the sea breeze effects with WRF V2.2, and had
> feedback for several months. I am also using "feedback = 1" in the
> namelist, and I had pretty incredibly precise results compared to what
> happened in the real-world!
> 
> Being  very interested in this topic, I would like to hear other
> advices also, such as experiences about the physics to use, and the
> comparison of ARW and NMM!
> 
> Have a nice day
> 
>    Patrick
> 
> 
> 
> "Dorita Rostkier-Edelstein" <drostkier at yahoo.com> a écrit :
> 
>> Hi Mikhail,
>>  
>> From my experience simulating sea-land breeze with WRF over Israel
>> over complex topography (but with versions 2 of WRF) I suggest that
>> you use 2-way nesting WITH feedback. My experience is that if large
>> scale flow is strong unless you use 2-way with feedback the large
>> scale will erase the high resolution mesoscale effects very quickly,
>> in particular land-breeze. Also, re-start the model often, the range
>> of predictability is very short at 1 km resolution (the uptake of
>> the dynamics by the lateral boundaries, i.e., the large scale). I
>> re-start 4 times a day, and spin up is very short, ~3 hours. I have
>> not noticed significant differences between PBL parameterizations as
>> compared to the differences caused by the nesting strategy and lead
>> time.
>>  
>> I will be very interested to read about your new results if you try
>> my advice.
>>  
>> Dorita
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Mikhail Titov <mikhail.titov at canterbury.ac.nz>
>> To: wrf-users at ucar.edu
>> Cc: Mike Green <mike.green at canterbury.ac.nz>
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 3:32:17 AM
>> Subject: [Wrf-users] WRF sea breeze
>> 
>> 
>> Dear All,
>>  
>> I model diurnal-nocturnal cycle of see breeze for Australia (desert
>> pattern) using WRF v3.0 with ETA levelling.
>> But in the modelled one year mean wind off-show night breeze is
>> much better developed than on-shore day breeze.
>> In fact WRF (4-grid run: 27-9-3-1 km with local topography) fails to
>> reproduce on-shore day breeze to compare with observations.
>>  
>> My physical parameterisation is the next one:
>> =============================================
>>  &physics
>>  mp_physics                           = 6,     6,     6,    6,
>>  mp_zero_out                          = 2,
>>  ra_lw_physics                        = 1,     1,     1,    1,
>>  ra_sw_physics                       = 1,     1,     1,    1,
>>  radt                                       = 27,    27,    27,   27,
>>  sf_sfclay_physics                   = 1,     1,     1,    1,
>>  sf_surface_physics                 = 2,     2,     2,    2,
>>  bl_pbl_physics                       = 1,     1,     1,    1,
>>  bldt                                       = 0,     0,     0,    0,
>>  cu_physics                            = 1,     1,     0,    0,
>>  cudt                                      = 3,     3,     3,    0,
>>  isfflx                                      = 1,
>>  ifsnow                                   = 0,
>>  icloud                                   = 1,
>>  surface_input_source             = 1,
>>  num_soil_layers                    = 4,
>>  ucmcall                                = 0,
>>  mp_zero_out                        = 0,
>>  maxiens                              = 1,
>>  maxens2                             = 3,
>>  maxens3                             = 16,
>>  ensdim                               = 144,
>>  slope_rad                            = 0,
>>  topo_shading                      = 0,
>>  omlcall                               = 1,
>>  oml_hml0                           = 50.,
>>  oml_gamma                       = 0.13,
>> ===========================================
>>  
>> I use physical parameterization applied to desert places of Africa
>> and Arabia (WRF workshop, Boulder,  June 2008). 
>> Also I use two-way nesting (feedback = 0).
>>  
>> Any suggestions about what kind of physical parameterization is
>> better to reproduce see breeze in WRF is highly appreciable.
>> Any experience how is better to model see breeze using WRF will be
>> very useful. 
>>  
>> Many thanks,
>> Michael
>>  
>> --------------------------------------
>> Dr. Mikhail Titov
>> Connell Wagner Ltd.
>> VP of the NZ Met.Society
>> Universityof Canterbury
>> Christchurch, New Zealand
>> E-mail: Mikhail.Titov at canterbury.ac.nz
>> --------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wrf-users mailing list
> Wrf-users at ucar.edu
> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wrf-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/wrf-users/attachments/20080930/8adafd3c/attachment.html