Analysis of the Seasonal Cycle Within the First International Urban Land-Surface Model Comparison

被引:0
作者
M. J. Best
C. S. B. Grimmond
机构
[1] Met Office,
[2] King’s College London,undefined
[3] Department of Geography,undefined
来源
Boundary-Layer Meteorology | 2013年 / 146卷
关键词
Model complexity; Seasonal cycle; Urban model comparison; Vegetation;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
A number of urban land-surface models have been developed in recent years to satisfy the growing requirements for urban weather and climate interactions and prediction. These models vary considerably in their complexity and the processes that they represent. Although the models have been evaluated, the observational datasets have typically been of short duration and so are not suitable to assess the performance over the seasonal cycle. The First International Urban Land-Surface Model comparison used an observational dataset that spanned a period greater than a year, which enables an analysis over the seasonal cycle, whilst the variety of models that took part in the comparison allows the analysis to include a full range of model complexity. The results show that, in general, urban models do capture the seasonal cycle for each of the surface fluxes, but have larger errors in the summer months than in the winter. The net all-wave radiation has the smallest errors at all times of the year but with a negative bias. The latent heat flux and the net storage heat flux are also underestimated, whereas the sensible heat flux generally has a positive bias throughout the seasonal cycle. A representation of vegetation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for modelling the latent heat flux and associated sensible heat flux at all times of the year. Models that include a temporal variation in anthropogenic heat flux show some increased skill in the sensible heat flux at night during the winter, although their daytime values are consistently overestimated at all times of the year. Models that use the net all-wave radiation to determine the net storage heat flux have the best agreement with observed values of this flux during the daytime in summer, but perform worse during the winter months. The latter could result from a bias of summer periods in the observational datasets used to derive the relations with net all-wave radiation. Apart from these models, all of the other model categories considered in the analysis result in a mean net storage heat flux that is close to zero throughout the seasonal cycle, which is not seen in the observations. Models with a simple treatment of the physical processes generally perform at least as well as models with greater complexity.
引用
收藏
页码:421 / 446
页数:25
相关论文
共 327 条
[1]  
Allen L(2011)Global to city scale urban anthropogenic heat flux: model and variability Int J Climatol 31 1990-2005
[2]  
Lindberg F(1999)A study on the partition of net radiation into heat fluxes on a dry asphalt surface Atmos Environ 33 3911-3918
[3]  
Grimmond CSB(1989)A parameterization of heterogeneous land surfaces for atmospheric numerical models and its impact on regional meteorology Mon Weather Rev 117 2113-2136
[4]  
Anandakumar K(2005)Representing urban areas within operational numerical weather prediction models Boundary-Layer Meteorol 114 91-109
[5]  
Avissar R(2006)Progress towards better weather forecasts for city dwellers: From short range to climate change Theor Appl Climatol 84 47-55
[6]  
Pielke RA(2006)Evaluation of the urban tile in MOSES using surface energy balance observations Boundary- Layer Meteorol 118 503-525
[7]  
Best MJ(2011)The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), Model description – Part 1: Energy and water fluxes Geosci Model Dev 4 677-699
[8]  
Best MJ(2007)Characteristics influencing the variability of urban CO2 fluxes in Melbourne, Australia Atmos Environ 41 51-62
[9]  
Best MJ(2007)Impact of increasing urban density on local climate: spatial and temporal variations in the surface energy balance in Melbourne, Australia J Appl Meteorol 47 477-493
[10]  
Grimmond CSB(2005)Development and evaluation of an urban parameterization scheme in the Penn State/NCAR Mesoscale model (MM5) J Geophys Res 110 D10102-1397