Effects of local and non-local closure PBL schemes on the simulation of Super Typhoon Mangkhut (2018)

Abstract

With the convection-permitting simulation of Super Typhoon Mangkhut (2018) with a 3 km resolution for 10.5 days using mesoscale numerical model, Weather Research and Forecasting Model Version 4.1 (WRFV4.1), the influences of local closure QNSE planetary boundary layer (PBL) scheme and non-local closure GFS planetary boundary layer scheme on super typhoon Mangkhut are mainly discussed. It is found that in terms of either track or intensity of typhoon, the local closure QNSE scheme is better than the non-local closure GFS scheme. Local and non-local closure PBL schemes have a large influence on both the intensity and the structure of typhoon. The maximum intensity difference of the simulated typhoon is 50 hPa. The intensity of typhoon is closely related to its variations in structure. In the rapid intensification stage, the typhoon simulated by the QNSE scheme has a larger friction velocity, stronger surface latent heat flux, sensible heat flux and vapor flux, related to a higher boundary height and stronger vertical mixing. The latent heat flux and sensible heat flux on the surface conveyed energy upward for the typhoon while the water vapor was transported upward through vertical mixing. While the water vapor condensed, the latent heat was released, which further warmed the typhoon eyewall, strengthening the convection. The stronger winds also intensified the vertical mixing and the warm-core structure, further strengthened the typhoon. The differences in surface layer schemes dominated the differences between the two simulations.

Keywords

typhoon / planetary boundary layer scheme / WRF model

References

[1] Bae S Y, Hong S Y, Tao W K (2019). Development of a single-moment cloud microphysics scheme with prognostic hail for the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. Asia-Pac J Atmos Sci, 55(2): 233–245

[2] Braun S A, Tao W K (2000). Sensitivity of high-resolution simulations of hurricane Bob (1991) to planetary boundary layer parameterizations. Mon Weather Rev, 128(12): 3941–3961

[3] Deng G, Zhou Y S, Li J T (2005). The experiments of the boundary layer schemes on simulated typhoon Part I: the effect on the structure of typhoon. Chinese J Atmos Sci, 29(3): 417–428 (in Chinese)

[4] Ding C H, Li J N, Zhao Y J, Feng Y R (2018). The influence of boundary layer parameterization schemes on autumn typhoon Sarika (2016) in South China Sea. J Tropical Meteorology, 34(5): 657–673 (in Chinese)

[5] Deardorff J W (1972). Theoretical expression for the countergradient vertical heat flux. J Geophys Res Atmos, 77(30): 5900–5904

[6] Dudhia J (1989). Numerical study of convection observed during the Winter Monsoon Experiment using a mesoscale two–dimensional model. J Atmos Sci, 46(20): 3077–3107

[7] Efstathiou G A, Zoumakis N M, Melas D, Lolis C J, Kassomenos P (2013). Sensitivity of WRF to boundary layer parameterizations in simulating a heavy rainfall event using different microphysical schemes. Effect on large-scale processes. Atmos Res, 132(10):125–143

[8] Emanuel K A (1995). Sensitivity of tropical cyclones to surface exchange coefficients and a revised steady-state model incorporating eye dynamics. J Atmos Sci, 52(22): 3969–3976

[9] Filippos T, Demetris C, Silas M, Jos L (2018). Intercomparison of boundary layer parameterizations for summer conditions in the eastern Mediterranean island of Cyprus using the WRF-ARW model. Atmos Sci, 208: 45–59

[10] Holtslag A A M, Boville B A (1993). Local versus non-local boundary layer diffusion in a global climate model. Climate (Basel), 6(10): 1825–1842

[11] Holtslag A A M, Moeng C H (1991). Eddy diffusivity and countergradient transport in the convective atmospheric boundary layer. J Atmos Sci, 48(14): 1690–1698

[12] Hong S Y, Pan H L (1996). Non-local boundary layer vertical diffusion in a medium-range forecast model. Mon Weather Rev, 124(10): 2322–2339

[13] Huang W Y, Shen X Y, Wang W G, Huang W (2014). Comparison of the thermal and dynamic structural characteristics in boundary layer with different boundary layer parameterizations. Chinese J Geophys, 57(5):1399–1414 (in Chinese)

[14] Janjić Z I (2002). Nonsingular implementation of the Mellor—Yamada level 2.5 scheme in the NCEP Meso model. NCEP Office Note

[15] Kaplan J, DeMaria M (2003). Large-scale characteristics of rapidly intensifying tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic basin. Weather Forecast, 18(6): 1093–1108

[16] Li J N, Ding C H, Li F Z, Chen Y L (2020). Effects of single- and double-moment microphysics schemes on the intensity of super typhoon Sarika (2016). Atmos Res, 238: 104894

[17] Li J N, Huang X D, Wang G, Fong S K, Li W B (2009). Numerical simulation study of the inner-core structures and the mechanism for inshore strengthening of South China Sea Typhoon Vongfong (0214) during landfall. J Trop Meteorol, 15(1): 45–48

[18] Li J N, Wang G, Lin W S, He Q H, Feng Y R, Mao J Y (2013). Cloud-scale simulation study of Typhoon Hagupit (2008) Part II: Impact of cloud microphysical latent heat processes on typhoon intensity. Atmos Res, 120: 202–215

[19] Liu J J, Zhang F M, Pu Z X (2017). Numerical simulation of the rapid intensification of Hurricane Katrina (2005): Sensitivity to boundary layer parameterization schemes. Advances in Atmos Sci, 34(4): 482–496

[20] Li X L, Pu Z X (2008). Sensitivity of numerical simulation of early rapid intensification of Hurricane Emily (2005) to cloud microphysical and planetary boundary layer parameterizations. Mon Weather Rev, 136(12): 4819–4838

[21] Mellor G L, Yamada T (1982). Development of a turbulence closure model for geophysical fluid problems. Rev Geophys Space Phys, 20(4): 851–875

[22] Ming J, Zhang J A (2016). Effects of surface flux parameterization on the numerically simulated intensity and structure of Typhoon Morakot (2009). Advances in Atmos Sci, 33: 58–72

[23] Mlawer E J, Taubman S J, Brown P D, Iacono M J, Clough S A (1997). Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the longwave. J Geophys Res, 102(D14): 16663–16682

[24] Moss M S, Rosenthal S L (1975). On the estimation (from bulk data) of boundary layer variables and cloud base mass flux in mature hurricanes. Mon Weather Rev, 20(4): 851–875

[25] Nolan D S, Zhang J A, Stern D P (2009a). Evaluation of planetary boundary layer parameterizations in tropical cyclones by comparison of in situ observations and high-resolution simulations of Hurricane Isabel (2003). Part I: initialization, maximum winds, and the outer-core boundary layer. Mon Weather Rev, 137(11): 3651–3674

[26] Nolan D S, Zhang J A, Stern D P (2009b). Evaluation of planetary boundary layer parameterizations in tropical cyclones by comparison of in situ observations and high-resolution simulations of Hurricane Isabel (2003). PartⅡ: inner-core boundary layer and eyewall structure. Mon Weather Rev, 137(11): 3675–3698

[27] Pleim J E, Chang J S (1992). A non-local closure model for vertical mixing in the convective boundary layer. Atmos Environ, 26A(6): 965–981

[28] Ricchi A, Miglietta M M, and . (2017). Sensitivity of a Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone to different model configurations and coupling strategies. Atmosphere, 8(5): 92

[29] Rotunno R, Bryan G H (2012). Effects of parameterized diffusion on simulated hurricanes. J Atmos Sci, 69(7): 2284–2299

[30] Smith R K, Thomsen G L (2010). Dependence of tropical-cyclone intensification on the boundary-layer representation in a numerical model. Quarterly J Royal Meteorol Soc, 136(652): 1671–1685

[31] Sukoriansky S, Galperin B, Perov V (2005). Application of a new spectral model of stratified turbulence to the atmospheric boundary layer over sea ice. Boundary-Layer Meteorol, 117(2): 231–257

[32] Sun W Q, Li C Y (2018). A review of atmospheric boundary layer parameterization schemes in numerical models. J Marine Meteorology, 38(3): 11–19 (in Chinese)

[33] Sun Y, Yi L, Zhong Z, Hu Y J, Ha Y (2013). Dependence of model convergence on horizontal resolution and convective parameterization in simulations of a tropical cyclone at gray-zone resolutions. J Geophys Res, 118(14): 7715–7732

[34] Tewari M F, Chen W, Wang J, Dudhia J, Cuemca R H (2004). Implementation and verification of the unified NOAH land surface model in the WRF model. In: 20th Conference on Weather Analysis and Forecasting/16th Conference on Numerical Weather Prediction: 11–15.

[35] Troen I B, Mahrt L (1986). A simple model of the atmospheric boundary layer; sensitivity to surface evaporation. Boundary-Layer Meteorol, 37:129–148

[36] Tymvios F, Demetris C, Silas M, Jos L (2018). Intercomparison of boundary layer parameterizations for summer conditions in the eastern Mediterranean island of Cyprus using the WRF-ARW model. Atmos Res, 208: 45–59

[37] Wang Y X, Zhong z, Sun Y, Hu Y J (2017). The mechanism analysis of the track deviation of tropical cyclone Megi (2010) simulated with two planetary boundary layer schemes. Chinese J Geophy, 60(7): 2545–2555 (in Chinese)

[38] Wen X P, Long X, Zhang S W, Li D H (2018). Numerical studies of planetary boundary layer parameterization schemes on super typhoon SANBA (2012) during its initial stage. J Trop Meteorol, 24(3): 288–299

[39] Xu H Y, Xu Y Q, Wang Z, Zhu P J, Li X F, Zhai G Q (2017). Modification tests for the coefficient of turbulent mixing length scale in QNSE scheme in the WRF model. Chinese J Atmos Sciences, 41(2): 357–371 (in Chinese)

[40] Yamada T, Mellor G L (1975). A simulation of the Wangara atmospheric boundary layer data. J Atmos Sci, 32: 2309–2329

[41] Ying M, Zhang W, Yu H, Lu X Q, Feng J X, Fan Y X, Zhu Y T, Chen D Q (2014). An overview of the China Meteorological Administration tropical cyclone database. J Atmos Ocean Technol, 31(2): 287–301

[42] Zhang Y T, Jiang Y X, Tan B K (2013). Influences of different PBL schemes on secondary eyewall formation and eyewall replacement cycle in simulated Typhoon Sinlaku (2008). Acta Meteorol Sin, 27(3): 322–334

[43] Zhang J A, Rogers R F, Tallapragada V (2017). Impact of parameterized boundary layer structure on tropical cyclone rapid intensification forecasts in HWRF. Mon Weather Rev, 145: 1413–1426

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press