The urban land use in the COSMO-CLM model: a comparison of three parameterizations for Berlin

Trusilova, Kristina; Schubert, Sebastian; Wouters, Hendrik; Früh, Barbara; Grossman‐Clarke, Susanne; Demuzere, Matthias; Becker, Paul

doi:10.1127/metz/2015/0587

Cited by 48 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1 or 0.5 km), the more complex UCMs may be more beneficial. This is also supported by results from Trusilova et al ().…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Former studies (e.g. Fenner et al , ; Trusilova et al , ) and our observations (Table ) showed nocturnal UHIs in Berlin during summer with pronounced urban–rural differences, but also intra‐urban differences. During day, urban–rural differences and intra‐urban differences were lower in these observations, but the city tended to remain warmer than its rural surroundings.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Urban–rural differences in near‐surface air temperature as resolved by the Central Europe Refined analysis (CER): sensitivity to planetary boundary layer schemes and urban canopy models

Jänicke

Meier

Fenner

et al. 2016

Intl Journal of Climatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model‐based studies on urban heat islands can be seriously affected by errors in near‐surface air temperature (T2), especially if errors differ between cities and their rural surroundings. Furthermore, errors in T2 strongly depend on selected parameterisation schemes, in particular on the planetary boundary layer (PBL) scheme and the urban canopy model (UCM). We developed the Central Europe Refined analysis (CER), a dataset generated by dynamically downscaling a global atmospheric reanalysis with the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model for Central Europe (30 km), Germany (10 km), and the region of Berlin‐Brandenburg (2 km). CER data were analysed to study urban–rural and intra‐urban differences in T2 for Berlin as well as to test the sensitivity of T2 against two different PBL schemes, a mosaic approach, and three UCMs with different levels of complexity. Results were evaluated using data from 22 weather stations. All tested configurations simulated T2 with small deviations from observations. The PBL schemes predominantly control the deviation of T2. From the tested PBL schemes, the Bougeault–Lacarrére scheme performed better than the Mellor–Yamada–Janjić scheme. The application of different UCMs and the mosaic approach also influenced the deviations, but not as strongly as the PBL schemes. The performance of the UCMs regarding the representation of intra‐urban and urban–rural differences showed that differences were largest when using a complex multi‐layer UCM. Overall, the simplest model showed lowest deviations. We conclude that more research on UCMs is required because complex UCMs showed potentials but did not outperform the simple slab model.

show abstract

“…1 or 0.5 km), the more complex UCMs may be more beneficial. This is also supported by results from Trusilova et al ().…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Urban–rural differences in near‐surface air temperature as resolved by the Central Europe Refined analysis (CER): sensitivity to planetary boundary layer schemes and urban canopy models

Jänicke

Meier

Fenner

et al. 2016

Intl Journal of Climatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The downscaling strategy takes the lateral boundary conditions from the ERA-Interim-driven COSMO-CLM simulation at 12.5 km resolution from the COordinated Regional climate Downscaling EXperiment (CORDEX) for Europe [Kotlarski et al, 2014;Jacob et al, 2013;Vautard et al, 2013]. In agreement to the evaluation of the climate model in earlier studies [Brisson et al, 2016a[Brisson et al, , 2016bWouters et al, 2015Wouters et al, , 2016Trusilova et al, 2016;Demuzere et al, 2017;Davin et al, 2016], the control simulation was found to reproduce both the observed coarse temperature climatology and the urban heat islands of the study domain very well, see Figures S2, S3, S4, and Table S4. A detailed description and evaluation of the urban climate model and its control configuration is provided in the supporting information S1 (see Texts S1 to S4) [WMO, 2008;Davin et al, 2016;Davy and Esau, 2014;Jacob et al, 2007;Wouters et al, 2013;Dimitrova et al, 2016;Thiery et al, 2016;Vanden Broucke et al, 2015;Akkermans et al, 2014;Davin et al, 2014;Grossman-Clarke et al, 2016;Prein et al, 2013;Grasselt, 2008;Schulz et al, 2016;Haylock et al, 2008;De Ridder et al, 2015].…”

Section: Cpm Climate Downscalingmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…It is also indispensable for taking the local land use change such as urban expansion into account. Convection-permitting models (CPMs; size of grid cells ≤ 25 km 2 ), offering more than 100 times more grid cells per unit area than those previous assessments, are able to explicitly resolve the local heterogeneous weather conditions and especially the urban heat island effect [e.g., Trusilova et al, 2016;Jänicke et al, 2016;Wouters et al, 2016Wouters et al, , 2013Bohnenstengel et al, 2011;Van Weverberg et al, 2008]. As such, they allow to identify the local hot spots and the associated urban climate change risks [Prein et al, 2015].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heat stress increase under climate change twice as large in cities as in rural areas: A study for a densely populated midlatitude maritime region

Wouters

Ridder

Poelmans

et al. 2017

Geophysical Research Letters

Self Cite

151

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban areas are usually warmer than their surrounding natural areas, an effect known as the urban heat island effect. As such, they are particularly vulnerable to global warming and associated increases in extreme temperatures. Yet ensemble climate‐model projections are generally performed on a scale that is too coarse to represent the evolution of temperatures in cities. Here, for the first time, we combine unprecedented long‐term (35 years) urban climate model integrations at the convection‐permitting scale (2.8 km resolution) with information from an ensemble of general circulation models to assess temperature‐based heat stress for Belgium, a densely populated midlatitude maritime region. We discover that the heat stress increase toward the mid‐21st century is twice as large in cities compared to their surrounding rural areas. The exacerbation is driven by the urban heat island itself, its concurrence with heat waves, and urban expansion. Cities experience a heat stress multiplication by a factor 1.4 and 15 depending on the scenario. Remarkably, the future heat stress surpasses everywhere the urban hot spots of today. Our results demonstrate the need to combine information from climate models, acting on different scales, for climate change risk assessment in heterogeneous regions. Moreover, these results highlight the necessity for adaptation to increasing heat stress, especially in urban areas.

show abstract

“…This effort helped to identify the dominant physical processes, the level of complexity needed in an application specific context, and parameter requirements. Other ULSM evaluations in online mode (coupled to an atmospheric/climate model) include: a single‐ and a multi‐layer urban parametrization within the Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Mesoscale Prediction System for the New York City metropolitan area (Holt and Pullen, 2007); various urban canopy schemes (slab, single‐layer and multi‐layer with and without a building energy model) in the Weather Research and Forecasting/Chemistry model to evaluate the regional climate and air quality of the Yangtze River Delta (China) (Liao et al , 2014), and high‐resolution regional climate simulations over Berlin (Germany) with the COSMO‐CLM regional climate model coupled to the Town Energy Budget (TEB) model (Trusilova et al , 2013, 2015), the Double Canyon Effect Parametrization (DCEP) scheme (Schubert and Grossman‐Clarke, 2012) and TERRA_URB (Wouters et al , 2015, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of urban canopy models and external parameters on the modelled urban energy balance in a tropical city

Demuzere

Harshan

Järvi

et al. 2017

Quart J Royal Meteoro Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To date, existing urban land surface models (ULSMs) have been mostly evaluated and optimized for mid‐ and high‐latitude cities. For the first time, we provide a comparative evaluation of four ULSMs for a tropical residential neighbourhood in Singapore using directly measured energy balance components. The simulations are performed offline, for an 11 month period, using the bulk scheme TERRA_URB and three models of intermediate complexity (CLM, SURFEX and SUEWS). In addition, information from three different parameter lists are used to quantify the impact (interaction) of (between) external parameter settings and model formulations on the modelled urban energy balance components. Encouragingly, overall results indicate good model performance for most energy balance components and align well with previous findings for midlatitude regions, suggesting the transferability of these models to (sub)tropical regions. Similar to results from midlatitude regions, the outgoing long‐wave radiation and latent heat flux remain the most problematic fluxes. In addition, the various combinations of models and different parameter values suggest that error statistics tend to be dominated more by the choice of the latter than the choice of model. Finally, our intercomparison framework enabled the attribution of common deficiencies in the different model approaches found previously in midlatitude regions: the simple representation of water intercepted by impervious surfaces leading to a positive bias in the latent heat flux directly after a precipitation event; and the positive bias in modelled outgoing long‐wave radiation that is partly due to neglecting the radiative interactions of water vapour between the surface and the tower sensor. These findings suggest that future developments in urban climate research should continue the integration of more physically based processes in urban canopy models, ensure the consistency between the observed and modelled atmospheric properties and focus on the correct representation of urban morphology, water storage and thermal and radiative characteristics.

show abstract

The urban land use in the COSMO-CLM model: a comparison of three parameterizations for Berlin

Cited by 48 publications

References 0 publications

Urban–rural differences in near‐surface air temperature as resolved by the Central Europe Refined analysis (CER): sensitivity to planetary boundary layer schemes and urban canopy models

Urban–rural differences in near‐surface air temperature as resolved by the Central Europe Refined analysis (CER): sensitivity to planetary boundary layer schemes and urban canopy models

Heat stress increase under climate change twice as large in cities as in rural areas: A study for a densely populated midlatitude maritime region

Impact of urban canopy models and external parameters on the modelled urban energy balance in a tropical city

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About