Journal cover Journal topic
Geoscientific Model Development An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 4.252 IF 4.252
  • IF 5-year value: 4.890 IF 5-year 4.890
  • CiteScore value: 4.49 CiteScore 4.49
  • SNIP value: 1.539 SNIP 1.539
  • SJR value: 2.404 SJR 2.404
  • IPP value: 4.28 IPP 4.28
  • h5-index value: 40 h5-index 40
  • Scimago H index value: 51 Scimago H index 51
Discussion papers
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2018-238
© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2018-238
© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Model evaluation paper 08 Oct 2018

Model evaluation paper | 08 Oct 2018

Review status
This discussion paper is a preprint. It is a manuscript under review for the journal Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).

A spatial evaluation of high-resolution wind fields from empirical and dynamical modeling in hilly and mountainous terrain

Christoph Schlager1, Gottfried Kirchengast1,2, Juergen Fuchsberger1, Alexander Kann3, and Heimo Truhetz1 Christoph Schlager et al.
  • 1Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change (WEGC), University of Graz, Graz, Austria
  • 2Institute for Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Meteorology/Institute of Physics, University of Graz, Graz, Austria
  • 3Department of Forecasting Models, Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics (ZAMG), Vienna, Austria

Abstract. Empirical high-resolution surface wind fields, automatically generated by a weather diagnostic application, the WegenerNet Wind Product Generator (WPG), were intercompared with wind field analysis data from the Integrated Nowcasting through Comprehensive Analysis (INCA) system and with dynamical climate model wind field data from the non-hydrostatic climate model COSMO-CLM. The INCA analysis fields are available at a horizontal grid spacing of 1kmx1km, whereas the COSMO model fields are from simulations at a 3kmx3km grid. The WPG, developed by Schlager et al. (2017, 2018), generates diagnostic fields at a high resolution grid of 100mx100m, using observations from two dense meteorological station networks: The WegenerNet Feldbach Region (FBR) and its alpine sister network, the WegenerNet Johnsbachtal (JBT). The high-density WegenerNet FBR is located in southeastern Styria, Austria, a region predominated by a hilly terrain and small differences in altitude. The network consists of more than 150 meteorological stations. The WegenerNet JBT contains eleven meteorological stations at elevations ranging from about 600m to 2200m in a mountainous region in northern Styria.

The wind fields of these different empirical/dynamical modeling approaches were intercompared for thermally induced and strong wind events, using hourly temporal resolutions as supplied by the WPG, with the focus on evaluating spatial differences and displacements between the different datasets. For this comparison, a novel neighborhood-based spatial wind verification methodology based on fractions skill socres (FSS) is used to estimate the modeling performances. All comparisons show an increasing FSS with increasing neighborhood size. In general, the spatial verification indicates a better statistical agreement for the hilly WegenerNet FBR than for the mountainous WegenerNet JBT. The results for the WegenerNet FBR show a better agreement between INCA and WegenerNet than between COSMO and WegenerNet wind fields, especially for large scales (neighborhoods). In particular, COSMO-CLM clearly underperforms in case of thermally induced wind events. For the JBT region, all spatial comparisons indicate little overlap at small neighborhood sizes and in general large biases of wind vectors occur between the dynamical (COSMO) and analysis (INCA) fields and the diagnostic (WegenerNet) reference dataset.

Furthermore, gridpoint-based error measures were calculated for the same evaluation cases. The statistical agreement, estimated for the vector-mean wind speed and wind directions show again a better agreement for the WegenerNet FBR than for the WegenerNet JBT region. In general, the difference between modeled and observed wind directions is smaller for strong wind speed events than for thermally induced ones. A combined examination of all spatial and gridpoint-based error measures shows that COSMO-CLM with its limited horizontal resolution of 3kmx3km and hence, a too smoothed orography, is not able to represent small-scale wind patterns. The results for the JBT region indicate that the INCA analysis fields generally overestimate wind speeds in the summit regions. For strong wind speed events the wind speed in the valleys is underestimated by INCA, however. Regarding the WegenerNet diagnostic wind fields, the statistics show decent performance in the FBR and somewhat overestimated wind speeds for strong wind speed events in the Enns valley of the JBT region.

Christoph Schlager et al.
Interactive discussion
Status: open (until 16 Dec 2018)
Status: open (until 16 Dec 2018)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
[Subscribe to comment alert] Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
Christoph Schlager et al.
Christoph Schlager et al.
Viewed  
Total article views: 375 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
275 91 9 375 7 4
  • HTML: 275
  • PDF: 91
  • XML: 9
  • Total: 375
  • BibTeX: 7
  • EndNote: 4
Views and downloads (calculated since 08 Oct 2018)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 08 Oct 2018)
Viewed (geographical distribution)  
Total article views: 373 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 372 with geography defined and 1 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Cited  
Saved  
No saved metrics found.
Discussed  
No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 10 Dec 2018
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
Empirical high-resolution surface wind fields from two study areas, automatically generated by a weather diagnostic application, were intercompared with wind fields of different modeling approaches. The focus is on evaluating spatial differences and displacements between the different datasets. In general, the spatial verification indicates a better statistical agreement for the first study area, the hilly WegenerNet FBR than for the second one, the mountainous WegenerNet JBT.
Empirical high-resolution surface wind fields from two study areas, automatically generated by a...
Citation
Share