Land Surface Modeling and Dry Deposition

Transcription

1 Land Surface Modeling and Dry Deposition Jonathan Pleim* Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division NOAA - Air Resources Laboratory Research Triangle Park, NC * On assignment to the National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA. CMAQ Model Peer Review Meeting R.T.P., NC December 17, 23 Although this work was reviewed by EPA and approved for publication, ion, it may not necessarily reflect official Agency policy.

2 Outline Pleim-Xiu Land Surface Model Model Description Landuse and Soil Parameters processing Data assimilation Model evaluation M3Dry Connection w/ PX LSM Surface resistances Model evaluation

3 PX-LSM Features Originally based on Interactions between Soil, Biosphere, and Atmosphere (ISBA) model Noilhan and Planton (1989) Soil Moisture and Temp in two Layers Surface (1 cm), Root Zone (1 m) Three pathways for evaporation Ground evaporation - f(sfc soil moisture) Wet canopies - f(cwc) Evapotranspiration - f(stomatal resistance) R = stb 1 LAI Rst min F ( rad ) F ( sm) F ( rh) F 4 ( T a )

4 PX-LSM Features (cont) Detailed Vegetation and Soil Data USGS and STATSGO (1 km) Grid cell aggregate parameters from fractional area LU and soil type data. Seasonal Vegetation Growth Model Deep soil temperature for leaf-out Planting dates and growth curves for crops Green Vegetation fraction from AVHRR Indirect Soil Moisture Nudging Model-obs surface temperature and humidity

5 Soil Moisture Nudging w t g ( a f ) ( a f ) T T + RH RH α 1 α = 2 w 2 = β1 2 t β ( a f ) ( a f ) T T + RH RH

6 Nudging Strength α 1,2 = A 1,2 R g S F txt R a min R a β 1,2 = B 1, 2 R c min F 1 F 4 LAI R st min (1 veg) F txt R a min R a veg F txt = W wlt (stype) + W fc (stype) W wlt (loam) + W fc (loam)

7 Deep soil moisture initialization.4 Franklin, TN.4 Gallatin, TN.35 wet init dry init Jun/11 Jun/12 Jun/13 Jun/14 Jun/15 Jun/16.3 wet init dry init.25 Jun/11 Jun/12 Jun/13 Jun/14 Jun/15 Jun/16.3 Cumberland, TN.4 Dickson, TN wet init dry init wet init dry init.1 Jun/11 Jun/12 Jun/13 Jun/14 Jun/15 Jun/ Jun/11 Jun/12 Jun/13 Jun/14 Jun/15 Jun/16

8 2-m temperature over multi-state region in eastern US Nudge Observed No Nudge Jul/21 Jul/22 Jul/23 Jul/24 Jul/25 Jul/26

9 Deep soil moisture.35 Nudge No Nudge Keysburg, KY Observed Jun/25 Jun/3 Jul/5 Jul/1 Jul/15 Jul/2 Jul/26.2

10 Sensible heat flux 3 25 Observed Nudge No Nudge Jul/14 Jul/16 Jul/18 Jul/2 Jul/22 Jul/24 Jul/26

11 Development and Evaluation Field Experiment comparisons 1-D: Wangara,, FIFE (Pleim( & Xiu 95) MM4: Bondville corn (Pleim( et al, 96) MM5: FIFE (Xiu( & Pleim 21) MM5v3: Soybeans in KY and Forest in NY (Pleim( et al 21) MM5v3: SOS 1999 SM data assimilation experiments (Pleim( & Xiu 23) Model releases PX LSM in NCAR release of MM5v3 M3dry in 21 release of CMAQ

12 CENRAP Sensitivity testing (Calvin Ku) Pleim-Xiu scheme yielded significant & widespread improvements over all configurations in all regions, particularly in July January evaluation shows no clear disbenefits, and minor benefits Greatest benefits obtained when PX uses continuos soil T&q fields Requires use of INTERPX & that the 5-day 5 blocks be run sequentially m/s Basecase ObsWndSpd Observed/Predicted Windspeed / 2 7/ 3 7/ 4 7/ 5 7/ 6 7/ 7 7/ 8 7/ 9 7/1 7/11 7/12 7/13 7/14 7/15 7/16 7/17 PrdWndSpd m/s Observed/Predicted Windspeed Pleim-Xiu ObsWndSpd PrdWndSpd 7/ 2 7/ 3 7/ 4 7/ 5 7/ 6 7/ 7 7/ 8 7/ 9 7/1 7/11 7/12 7/13 7/14 7/15 7/16 7/17 3 Bias/Gross Error Temperature Tempr t r Bi as Temprtr Gross Error 3 Bias/Gross Error Temperature Tempr t r B ias Temprtr Gross Error K 1 K / 2 7/ 3 7/ 4 7/ 5 7/ 6 7/ 7 7/ 8 7/ 9 7/ 1 7/ 11 7/ 12 7/ 13 7/ 14 7/ 15 7/ 16 7/ / 2 7/ 3 7/ 4 7/ 5 7/ 6 7/ 7 7/ 8 7/ 9 7/ 1 7/ 11 7/ 12 7/ 13 7/ 14 7/ 15 7/ 16 7/ Bias/Gross Error Humidity Humdi t y Bi as Humdit y Gross Er ror Bias/Gross Error Humidity 3 Humdity Bias Humdity Gross Error 2 2 g/kg g/kg / 2 7/ 3 7/ 4 7/ 5 7/ 6 7/ 7 7/ 8 7/ 9 7/ 1 7/ 11 7/ 12 7/ 13 7/ 14 7/ 15 7/ 16 7/ / 2 7/ 3 7/ 4 7/ 5 7/ 6 7/ 7 7/ 8 7/ 9 7/ 1 7/ 11 7/ 12 7/ 13 7/ 14 7/ 15 7/ 16 7/ 17

13 Sensible and Latent Heat Flux H - Model LE - Model LE - Obs H - Obs Aug 11-15, Aug/11 Aug/12 Aug/13 Aug/14 Aug/ H - Model LE - Model LE - Obs H - Obs Sep 3-6, Sep/3 Sep/4 Sep/5 Sep/6 Sep/7

14 3 25 PBL Height at Cornelia Fort, TN Model Observed Height (m-agl) /17/99 6/23/99 6/29/99 7/5/99 7/11/99

15 Models-3 3 Dry Deposition Models 1. M3dry coupled to the PX-LSM (option in MM5v3) 2. M3dry not coupled to LSM Stomatal resistance parameterized without variable soil moisture 3. RADM dry deposition model by Wesely (1989) Component resistances by chemical species and land-use (11 categories) No dependence on soil moisture

16 Models-3 3 Dry Deposition Model (M3dry) R st and R a from LSM Benefits of coupling to LSM: Stomatal pathway constrained by surface energy budget Responsive to changing moisture and vegetation Benefits from indirect nudging Deposition to leaf cuticle and ground surfaces by solubility and reactivity scaling

17 Schematic of resistance model C a R a R cut R b C c R ac R st C s R g C g

18 Dry Deposition Velocity of O Model Obs Soybeans Keysburg, KY Aug 1 Sep15, Hour (LST) Model Obs Hour (LST) Mixed Forest Sand Flats, NY July 13-3, 1998

19 Recent Dry Deposition developments Modifications for MCIP2.2 and CMAQ3 Updated Henry s law and Diffusivities Added pathway to wet ground New ammonia cuticle resistance based on Sutton et al. (1998) and Wyers and Erisman (1998): r cut Added pathway to snowpack: G X m = snow 4exp(.54RH ) 1 = X m r ice + X ( r snowdiff = F m 2.2( T1.5 ( T 1.)) ; X m + r wet ).5 References: Bales et al. (1987), Erisman et al. (1994)

20 Comparison of winter mods to M3dry V d of NH 3 v2.1 Vd of NH3 v2.2 v2.1-v2.2 T(ground)

21 Ongoing and Future Work Add PX LSM to WRF and include snow model ala NOAH or RUC (in collaboration w/ UNC-CEP, CEP, NCAR) Assess Photosynthesis based models for LSM and Dry Deposition Re-examine examine aerosol Dry deposition Two-way way surface exchange for NH 3 (in collaboration w/ NASA GSFC)