Comparison of Estimated Atmospheric Boundary Layer Mixing Height in the Arctic and Southern Great Plains under Statically Stable Conditions: Experimental and Numerical Aspects

The atmospheric boundary layer mixing height (MH) is an important bulk parameter in air quality (AQ) modelling. Formulating this parameter under statically stable conditions, such as in the Arctic, has historically been difficult. In an effort to improve AQ modelling capacity in North America, MH is...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Atmosphere-ocean 2016-01, Vol.54 (1), p.60-74
Main Authors: Aliabadi, A.A., Staebler, R.M., de Grandpré, J., Zadra, A., Vaillancourt, P.A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Arctic
boundary layer
Marine
mid-latitude
mixing height
parameterization
profile methods
static stability
surface methods
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The atmospheric boundary layer mixing height (MH) is an important bulk parameter in air quality (AQ) modelling. Formulating this parameter under statically stable conditions, such as in the Arctic, has historically been difficult. In an effort to improve AQ modelling capacity in North America, MH is studied in two geographically distinct areas: the Arctic (Barrow, Alaska) and the southern Great Plains (Lamont, Oklahoma). Observational data from the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement program, Climate Research Facility and numerical weather forecasting data from Environment Canada's Regional Global Environmental Multiscale (GEM15) model have been used in order to examine the suitability of available parameterizations for MH under statically stable conditions and also to compare the level of agreement between observed and modelled MH. The analysis period is 1 October 2011 to 1 October 2012. The observations alone suggest that profile methods are preferred over surface methods in defining MH under statically stable conditions. Surface methods exhibit poorer comparison statistics with observations than profile methods. In addition, the fitted constants for surface methods are site-dependent, precluding their applicability for modelling under general conditions. The comparison of observations and GEM15 MH suggests that although the agreement is acceptable in Lamont, the default model surface method contributes to a consistent overprediction of MH in Barrow in all seasons. An alternative profile method for MH is suggested based on the bulk Richardson number. This method is shown to reduce the model bias in Barrow by a factor of two without affecting model performance in Lamont.
ISSN:0705-5900
1480-9214
DOI:10.1080/07055900.2015.1119100