2018
DOI: 10.5194/hess-2017-725
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating and improving modeled turbulent heat fluxes across the North American Great Lakes

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
0
12
1
Order By: Relevance
“…After a number of tests, the mixing factor is set to 40, which is comparable to Dai et al (). Compared to the CoLM‐Lake model, the WRF‐Lake model adopts constant surface roughness lengths for the momentum, heat, and water vapor, which may not reflect the real lake surface conditions but significantly affect the surface turbulent fluxes (Charusombat et al, ). Following Subin et al (), the constant lake surface roughness lengths are replaced by the parameterized scheme in the experiment SenExp4 for the WRF‐Lake model (Table ).…”
Section: Models Data Experiments and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After a number of tests, the mixing factor is set to 40, which is comparable to Dai et al (). Compared to the CoLM‐Lake model, the WRF‐Lake model adopts constant surface roughness lengths for the momentum, heat, and water vapor, which may not reflect the real lake surface conditions but significantly affect the surface turbulent fluxes (Charusombat et al, ). Following Subin et al (), the constant lake surface roughness lengths are replaced by the parameterized scheme in the experiment SenExp4 for the WRF‐Lake model (Table ).…”
Section: Models Data Experiments and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Improvements in the eddy covariance (EC) technique in recent decades has enabled direct and continuous measurements of E over lakes (Blanken et al, 2000; Spence et al, 2013). Direct measurements of E have proven to be critical for evaluating and improving the models (Charusombat et al, 2018; Fujisaki‐Manome et al, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This effort requires that data and models be seamlessly integrated across the international border of the U.S. and Canada (Gronewold et al 2018), as demonstrated in the expansion of the National Water Model across the Great Lakes region (Mason et al 2019). Forecasting efforts could also benefit from the assimilation of state‐of‐the‐art measurements of antecedent conditions (e.g., snowpack, Arslan and Akyürek 2019, soil moisture, Entekhabi et al 2010), as well as additional runoff model intercomparisons (Gaborit et al 2017) and improvements in models of open‐water evapotranspiration (Charusombat et al 2018). Medium‐range water level forecasts would further improve with increased skill in precipitation and temperature forecasts at subseasonal to seasonal lead times (Vitart et al 2017); recent efforts in the Great Lakes region have focused on developing a suite of seasonal forecast tools for this purpose (Bolinger et al 2017).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%