Abstract

Abstract. Accurate models of planetary boundary layer (PBL) processes are important for forecasting weather and climate. The present study compares seven methods of calculating PBL depth in the GEOS-5 atmospheric general circulation model (AGCM) over land. These methods depend on the eddy diffusion coefficients, bulk and local Richardson numbers, and the turbulent kinetic energy. The computed PBL depths are aggregated to the Köppen–Geiger climate classes, and some limited comparisons are made using radiosonde profiles. Most methods produce similar midday PBL depths, although in the warm, moist climate classes the bulk Richardson number method gives midday results that are lower than those given by the eddy diffusion coefficient methods. Additional analysis revealed that methods sensitive to turbulence driven by radiative cooling produce greater PBL depths, this effect being most significant during the evening transition. Nocturnal PBLs based on Richardson number methods are generally shallower than eddy diffusion coefficient based estimates. The bulk Richardson number estimate is recommended as the PBL height to inform the choice of the turbulent length scale, based on the similarity to other methods during the day, and the improved nighttime behavior.

Highlights

  • The planetary boundary layer (PBL) depth is important for surface–atmosphere exchanges of heat, moisture, momentum, carbon, and pollutants

  • This section describes the results of the comparison of the different PBL depth estimates aggregated to the Köppen– Geiger climate classes

  • The different definitions, describe in detail the results from classes that deviate from this behavior, and examine in detail reasons for the difference between the PBL depths estimated using the Kh and bulk Richardson number methods

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The planetary boundary layer (PBL) depth is important for surface–atmosphere exchanges of heat, moisture, momentum, carbon, and pollutants. Several studies have attempted to understand the uncertainty associated with the use of different PBL depth definitions and have found the estimated. PBL depth to depend substantially on the method chosen. Seidel et al (2010) tested seven different PBL depth definition methods on radiosonde profiles. Using a single data set, the estimated PBL depth was found to differ by up to several hundred meters. The use of different methods in their study produced different seasonal variations. They concluded that it is necessary to compare different PBL depth estimates from different sources using the same method. Seidel et al (2012) recommended a bulk Richardson number based definition

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call