The Comparison of Six Methods to Calculate Turbulent Momentum Transfer Coefficient of Near-surface Layer

Hu Yanbing; Gao Zhiqiu; Sha Wenyu; Xiao Tao; Gao Chao

Vol.18, NO.3, 2007

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Journal of Applied Meteorological Science > 2007 > 18(3): 407-411

Hu Yanbing, Gao Zhiqiu, Sha Wenyu, et al. The comparison of six methods to calculate turbulent momentum transfer coefficient of near-surface layer. J Appl Meteor Sci, 2007, 18(3): 407-411.

Citation:

Hu Yanbing, Gao Zhiqiu, Sha Wenyu, et al. The comparison of six methods to calculate turbulent momentum transfer coefficient of near-surface layer. J Appl Meteor Sci, 2007, 18(3): 407-411.

Hu Yanbing, Gao Zhiqiu, Sha Wenyu, et al. The comparison of six methods to calculate turbulent momentum transfer coefficient of near-surface layer. J Appl Meteor Sci, 2007, 18(3): 407-411.

Citation:

Hu Yanbing, Gao Zhiqiu, Sha Wenyu, et al. The comparison of six methods to calculate turbulent momentum transfer coefficient of near-surface layer. J Appl Meteor Sci, 2007, 18(3): 407-411.

PDF( 925 KB)

The Comparison of Six Methods to Calculate Turbulent Momentum Transfer Coefficient of Near-surface Layer

1.
Meteorology Institute of the PLA Science and Engineering University, Nanjing 211101
2.
State Key Laboratory of Atmospheric Boundary Layer Physics and Atmospheric Chemistry, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, CAS, Beijing 100029
3.
Weather Guatantee Room of Troop 94514, Jinan 250002
4.
Nansen-zhu International Research Center, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, CAS, Beijing 100029

Received Date: 2006-06-06
Rev Recd Date: 2007-01-04
Publish Date: 2007-06-30

Abstract

Abstract

The momentum bulk transfer coefficient (C_M) is calculated by using six typical parameterization schemes and verified by the data of Naqu flux observation station of GAME (Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment, Asian Monsoon Experiment)/Tibet Plateau Experiment. The results show obvious difference exists between results of the six schemes and the degree of difference is decided by the type of undersurface and the near surface stability. Wherein, schemes of Businger 71, Dyer 74 and B & H91 must calculate the turbulent flux transfer coefficient by iteration and waste CPU time for numerical simulation. For flux data of Naqu observation station which is covered by sparse grass is considered, when the Richardson number is less than 0.1, all the other five schemes can do better estimation on the C_M except the scheme of Businger in 1971 which has an obvious underestimation. Under unstable conditions, the scheme of Dyer in 1974 has the best estimation on the momentum bulk transfer coefficient (C_M), the schemes of Wang et al. in 2002, Launiainen in 1995 and Louis et al. in 1982 can also be used with gradually increasing error, and the scheme of Businger in 1971 has serious underestimation.
- aerodynamics roughness length;
- the momentum bulk transfer coefficient;
- parameterization scheme

FullText(HTML)

References(16)

Figures and Tables

图 1 利用那曲站观测资料, 应用六种方案计算得到的湍流动量输送系数C_M和观测得到的C_Mobs随R_iB变化散点分布图

Fig. 1 Plot of the turbulent momentum flux transfer coefficient (C_M) calculated by six parameterization schemes with Naqu flux mesurements and the coefficient by observations (C_Mobs) varies according to R_iB

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

图 2 利用那曲站观测资料, 应用六种参数化方案计算得到的湍流动量输送系数C_M与观测得到的C_Mobs之间的1：1比例图

(*表示稳定条件, ●表示不稳定条件)

Fig. 2 The plot of the turbulent momentum flux transfer coefficient calculated by six parameterization schemes versus transfer coefficient determined by observation directly

("*" means stable condition and "●" means unstable condition)

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

表 1 六种方案分别应用那曲观测资料计算得到的C_M相对C_Mobs的归一化标准差 (E_N)

Table 1 The normalized standard error of the estimation (E_N) compared the C_M calculated by six schemes to the C_Mobs determined by direct measurements

表 2 六种方案特性以及计算效果对比

Table 2 Contrast of the six parameterization schemes on characters and evaluation

References

[1]	Gao Z, Bian L G, Zhou X J. Measurements of turbulent transfer in the near-surface layer over a rice paddy in China. J Geophys Res, 2003, 108(D13):4387-4399. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15042473
[2]	丁一汇.地表通量的计算问题.应用气象学报, 1997, 8(1):29-35. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YYQX7S1.004.htm
[3]	European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts. Proceedings of ECMWF Workshop on Parameterization of Fluxes over Land Surfaces.European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts, Reading, England, 1988:1-392.
[4]	Garratt J R, Pielke R A. On the sensitivity of mesoscale models to surface-layer parameterization constants. Boundary-Layer Meteorol, 1989, 48:377-387. doi: 10.1007/BF00123060
[5]	Monin A S, Obukhov A M. Basic regularity in turbulent mixing in surface layer of the atmosphere. Akad Nauk SSSR Geofiz Inst, 1954, 24:163-187.
[6]	Businger J A, Wyngaard J C, Izumi Y, et al. Flux-profile relationships in the atmospheric surface layer. J Atmos Sci, 1971, 28:181-189. doi: 10.1175/1520-0469(1971)028<0181:FPRITA>2.0.CO;2
[7]	Dyer A J. A review of flux-profile relationships. Boundary-Layer Meteorol, 1974, 7:363-372. doi: 10.1007/BF00240838
[8]	Louis J F.A parametric model of vertical eddy fluxes in the atmosphere. Boundary-Layer Meteorol, 1979, 17:187-202. doi: 10.1007/BF00117978
[9]	Louis J F, Tiedtke M, Geleyn J F.A Short History of the Operational PBL-parameterization at ECMWF.Workshop on Planetary Boundary Layer Parameterization, Shinfield Park, Reading, Berkshire, UK, European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, 1982:59-79. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/showciting?cid=2325009
[10]	Wang S P, Wang Q, Doyle J.Some Improvements to Louis Surface Parameterization.Paper Presented at 15th Symposium on Boundary Layers and Turbulence, Am Meteor Soc, Wageningen, Netherlands, 2002.
[11]	Miller M J, Beljaars A C M, Palmer T N.The sensitivity of the ECMWF model to the parameterization of evaporation from the tropical ocean. J Climate, 1992, 5:418-434. doi: 10.1175/1520-0442(1992)005<0418:TSOTEM>2.0.CO;2
[12]	Holtslag A A M, De Bruin H A R.Applied modeling of the nighttime surface engery balance over land.J App Meteorol, 1988, 27:689-704. doi: 10.1175/1520-0450(1988)027<0689:AMOTNS>2.0.CO;2
[13]	Beljaars A C M, Holtslag A A M.Flux parameterization over land surfaces for atmospheric models. J App Meteorol, 1991, 30:327-341. doi: 10.1175/1520-0450(1991)030<0327:FPOLSF>2.0.CO;2
[14]	Launiainen J.Derivation of the relationship between the Obukhov stability parameter and the bulk Richardson number for flux-profile studies. Boundary-Layer Meteorol, 1995, 76:165-179. doi: 10.1007/BF00710895
[15]	Gao Z, Chae N, Kim J, et al.Modeling of surface energy partitioning, surface temperature and soil wetness in the Tibetan prairie using the Simple Biosphere Model 2 (SiB2). J Geophys Res, 2004, 109, D06102, dio:10.1029/2003JD004089. doi: 10.1029/2003JD004089
[16]	Yang K, Koike T, Yang D. Surface flux parameterization in the Tibetan Plateau.Boundary-Layer Meteorol, 2003, 116:245-262. doi: 10.1023/A%3A1021152407334?no-access=true