Upload
edwin-barton
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Inquiry into the appropriatenessof a TILE/MOSAIC approach
for the representation of surface inhomogeneities
B. Ritter and J. Helmert
• Objective
• Concept of aggregation/disaggregation
• Pro&Con of TILE/MOSAIC
• Options of TILE and MOSAIC
• Implications for global and limited area NWP models
Outline
Account for non-linear effects of sub-grid inhomegeneities at surface on the exchange of energy and moisture between atmosphere and surface (cf. Ament&Simmer, 2006)
mosaic approach
surface divided in N subgrid cells
tile approach
N dominant classes
(e.g. water, snow, grass)
(Figure taken from
Ament&Simmer, 2006)
if
if1
1
i
N
i
f
Nfi
1
Objective
Coupling of coarse atmosphere and high resolution surface
E.g. Latent Heat Flux for one patch :
atmospheric variables
surface variablesGrid box average
Objective
• Disaggregation: fluxes directed to the surface
(downw. Radiation, Precipitation)
• Aggregation: fluxes from the surface to
the atmosphere (upw. Radiation, turb. Fluxes)
Concept
• Disaggregation: Tiling shortwave radiation
Gridbox value of net shortwave radiation (radiation scheme) Snet
Broadband (or spectral) albedo for each tile
netineti
N
i
SSf
,1
Energy conservation
Concept
Pro & Con of TILE/MOSAIC
Con:
• increase in computational effort & complexity• additional requirements for external parameter software• uncertainty with regard to suitable ‚blending height & depth‘
Pro:
• unsatisfactory handling of situations like snow melting
phase (partial snow cover) of current approach should be
alleviated• simple integration of submodels (e.g. Flake, Urban)• self-adaptation to model resolution
Options of TILE & MOSAIC
MOSAIC (i.e. explicit sub-grid approach) • initial selection of resolution enhancement factor, independent of heterogeneity resp. homogeneity of underlying surface• sub-optimal self-adaptation to atmospheric model resolution• unnecessary computational burden over homogeneous terrain (Stoll et al., 2010)
TILE (i.e. weighted averaging of contributions from flexible number of surface classes)
• self-adaption to atmospheric model resolution and heterogeneity of surface occurs automatically• computational burden adjusts to required number of surface classes
MOSAIC versus TILE approach
preference for tile approach(Figure taken from
Ament, 2006)
Options of TILE & MOSAIC
Blending height
• ‚standard‘: assume homogeneity of atmosphere at lowest atmospheric level
• alternative: allow heterogeneity also in atmosphere near surface (e.g. downscaling/disaggregation of atmospheric variables at the lowest model level; cf. Schomburg et al., 2009)
The ‚standard‘ approach creates neither technical problems nor computational overhead, but may not be justified in situations with large surface heterogeneities. A ‚downscaling‘ approach in the spirit of Schomburg et al. may alleviate this problem.
Options of TILE & MOSAIC
Blending depth
A proper tile/mosaic approach requires the simulation of soil internal processes like heat conduction for each indivual class resp.sub-cell
Assuming homogeneous conditions within the soil (e.g. ECMWF IFS) leads to a major simplification and saving of computational ressources but is hardly justifiable. In particular in the framework of DWD‘s multi-layer soil model with a top layer depth of only 1 cm, it appears to be a rather crude and unrealistic assumption.
implement tile approach in a consistent manner for all soil layers
Options of TILE & MOSAIC
Implemention of tile approach requires:
• development and implementation of corresponding extensions in external parameter software (i.e. landuse dependend parameters for a no. of dominant classes within each atmospheric grid cell)
• code structure to support multiple ‚soil columns‘ within each grid cell (TERRA adaptions in COLOBOC)
• physics interface routine or multi-layer soil model, which controls the computation over (flexible) number of classes within each cell and
performs necessary aggregation (&disaggregation)
• suitable diagnostics (within soil model) to allow proper validation of tile scheme
• a computationally efficient and flexible implementation (vectorisation?)
Implications for NWP
AROME (SURFEX)4 tiles: nature , town, sea, inland water
Nature: ISBA 3L (Boone et al 1999)1L snow scheme
(Douville, 1995)TownSea, inland water: constant T_s, Charnock formulaUM (Jules) 9 tiles, 5 veg + 4 non-veg
Broadleaf and needleleaf trees, temperate and tropical grasses,Shrubs, urban, inland water, bare soil, land ice.
IFS (HTESSEL) 6 land-surface tilesHigh vegetation, low vegetation, interception reservoir, bare ground, snow on ground and low vegetation,Snow under high vegetation
Implications for NWP
Implications for NWP