Search

Doppler-lidar wind-profile measurements at three sites were used to evaluate NWP model errors from two versions of NOAA's 3-km-grid HRRR model, to see whether updates in the latest version 4 reduced errors when compared against the original version 1. Nested (750-m grid) versions of each were also tested to see how grid spacing affected forecast skill. The measurements were part of the field phase of the Second Wind Forecasting Improvement Project (WFIP2), an 18-month deployment into central Oregon–Washington, a major wind-energy-producing region. This study focuses on errors in simulating marine intrusions, a summertime, 600–800-m-deep, regional sea-breeze flow found to generate large errors. HRRR errors proved to be complex and site dependent. The most prominent error resulted from a premature drop in modeled marine-intrusion wind speeds after local midnight, when lidar-measured winds of greater than 8 m s−1 persisted through the next morning. These large negative errors were offset at low levels by positive errors due to excessive mixing, complicating the interpretation of model "improvement," such that the updates to the full-scale versions produced mixed results, sometimes enhancing but sometimes degrading model skill. Nesting consistently improved model performance, with version 1's nest producing the smallest errors overall. HRRR's ability to represent the stages of sea-breeze forcing was evaluated using radiation budget, surface-energy balance, and near-surface temperature measurements available during WFIP2. The significant site-to-site differences in model error and the complex nature of these errors mean that field-measurement campaigns having dense arrays of profiling sensors are necessary to properly diagnose and characterize model errors, as part of a systematic approach to NWP model improvement. Significance Statement: Dramatic increases in NWP model skill will be required over the coming decades. This paper describes the role of major deployments of accurate profiling sensors in achieving that goal and presents an example from the Second Wind Forecast Improvement Program (WFIP2). Wind-profile data from scanning Doppler lidars were used to evaluate two versions of HRRR, the original and an updated version, and nested versions of each. This study focuses on the ability of updated HRRR versions to improve upon predicting a regional sea-breeze flow, which was found to generate large errors by the original HRRR. Updates to the full-scale HRRR versions produced mixed results, but the finer-mesh versions consistently reduced model errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ground-based Doppler-lidar instrumentation provides atmospheric wind data at dramatically improved accuracies and spatial/temporal resolutions. These capabilities have provided new insights into atmospheric flow phenomena, but they also should have a strong role in NWP model improvement. Insight into the nature of model errors can be gained by studying recurrent atmospheric flows, here a regional summertime diurnal sea breeze and subsequent marine-air intrusion into the arid interior of Oregon–Washington, where these winds are an important wind-energy resource. These marine intrusions were sampled by three scanning Doppler lidars in the Columbia River basin as part of the Second Wind Forecast Improvement Project (WFIP2), using data from summer 2016. Lidar time–height cross sections of wind speed identified 8 days when the diurnal flow cycle (peak wind speeds at midnight, afternoon minima) was obvious and strong. The 8-day composite time–height cross sections of lidar wind speeds are used to validate those generated by the operational NCEP–HRRR model. HRRR simulated the diurnal wind cycle, but produced errors in the timing of onset and significant errors due to a premature nighttime demise of the intrusion flow, producing low-bias errors of 6 m s−1. Day-to-day and in the composite, whenever a marine intrusion occurred, HRRR made these same errors. The errors occurred under a range of gradient wind conditions indicating that they resulted from the misrepresentation of physical processes within a limited region around the measurement locations. Because of their generation within a limited geographical area, field measurement programs can be designed to find and address the sources of these NWP errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the second Wind Forecast Improvement Project (WFIP2; October 2015–March 2017, held in the Columbia River Gorge and Basin area of eastern Washington and Oregon states), several improvements to the parameterizations used in the High Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR – 3 km horizontal grid spacing) and the High Resolution Rapid Refresh Nest (HRRRNEST – 750 m horizontal grid spacing) numerical weather prediction (NWP) models were tested during four 6-week reforecast periods (one for each season). For these tests the models were run in control (CNT) and experimental (EXP) configurations, with the EXP configuration including all the improved parameterizations. The impacts of the experimental parameterizations on the forecast of 80 m wind speeds (wind turbine hub height) from the HRRR and HRRRNEST models are assessed, using observations collected by 19 sodars and three profiling lidars for comparison. Improvements due to the experimental physics (EXP vs. CNT runs) and those due to finer horizontal grid spacing (HRRRNEST vs. HRRR) and the combination of the two are compared, using standard bulk statistics such as mean absolute error (MAE) and mean bias error (bias). On average, the HRRR 80 m wind speed MAE is reduced by 3 %–4 % due to the experimental physics. The impact of the finer horizontal grid spacing in the CNT runs also shows a positive improvement of 5 % on MAE, which is particularly large at nighttime and during the morning transition. Lastly, the combined impact of the experimental physics and finer horizontal grid spacing produces larger improvements in the 80 m wind speed MAE, up to 7 %–8 %. The improvements are evaluated as a function of the model's initialization time, forecast horizon, time of the day, season of the year, site elevation, and meteorological phenomena. Causes of model weaknesses are identified. Finally, bias correction methods are applied to the 80 m wind speed model outputs to measure their impact on the improvements due to the removal of the systematic component of the errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]