Evaluation of PBL Parameterizations in WRF at Subkilometer Grid Spacings: Turbulence Statistics in the Dry Convective Boundary Layer
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields



Publication Date Range:


Document Data


Document Type:






Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page


Evaluation of PBL Parameterizations in WRF at Subkilometer Grid Spacings: Turbulence Statistics in the Dry Convective Boundary Layer

Filetype[PDF-1.50 MB]


  • Journal Title:
    Monthly Weather Review
  • Description:
    Planetary boundary layer (PBL) parameterizations in mesoscale models have been developed for horizontal resolutions that cannot resolve any turbulence in the PBL, and evaluation of these parameterizations has been focused on profiles of mean and parameterized flux. Meanwhile, the recent increase in computing power has been allowing numerical weather prediction (NWP) at horizontal grid spacings finer than 1 km, at which kilometer-scale large eddies in the convective PBL are partly resolvable. This study evaluates the performance of convective PBL parameterizations in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model at subkilometer grid spacings. The evaluation focuses on resolved turbulence statistics, considering expectations for improvement in the resolved fields by using the fine meshes. The parameterizations include four nonlocal schemes—Yonsei University (YSU), asymmetric convective model 2 (ACM2), eddy diffusivity mass flux (EDMF), and total energy mass flux (TEMF)—and one local scheme, the Mellor–Yamada–Nakanishi–Niino (MYNN) level-2.5 model.

    Key findings are as follows: 1) None of the PBL schemes is scale-aware. Instead, each has its own best performing resolution in parameterizing subgrid-scale (SGS) vertical transport and resolving eddies, and the resolution appears to be different between heat and momentum. 2) All the selected schemes reproduce total vertical heat transport well, as resolved transport compensates differences of the parameterized SGS transport from the reference SGS transport. This interaction between the resolved and SGS parts is not found in momentum. 3) Those schemes that more accurately reproduce one feature (e.g., thermodynamic transport, momentum transport, energy spectrum, or probability density function of resolved vertical velocity) do not necessarily perform well for other aspects.

  • Source:
    Monthly Weather Review, 144(3), 1161-1177
  • Document Type:
  • Rights Information:
  • Compliance:
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • File Type:

Supporting Files

  • No Additional Files

More +

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at repository.library.noaa.gov

Version 3.23