Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “shortwave radiation”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 253 records · Page 14
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Deforestation reshapes land-surface energy-flux partitioning

Land-use and land-cover change significantly modify local land-surface characteristics and water/energy exchanges, which can lead to atmospheric circulation and regional climate changes. In particular, deforestation accounts for a large portion of global land-use changes, which transforms forests into other land cover types, such as croplands and grazing lands. Many previous efforts have focused on observing and modeling land–atmosphere–water/energy fluxes to investigate land–atmosphere coupling induced by deforestation. However, interpreting land–atmosphere–water/energy-flux responses to deforestation is often complicated by the concurrent impacts from shifts in land-surface properties versus background atmospheric forcings. In this study, we used 29 paired FLUXNET sites, to improve understanding of how deforested land surfaces drive changes in surface-energy-flux partitioning. Each paired sites included an intact forested and non-forested site that had similar background climate. We employed transfer entropy, a method based on information theory, to diagnose directional controls between coupling variables, and identify nonlinear cause–effect relationships. Transfer entropy is a powerful tool to detective causal relationships in nonlinear and asynchronous systems. The paired eddy covariance flux measurements showed consistent and strong information flows from vegetation activity (gross primary productivity (GPP)) and physical climate (e.g. shortwave radiation, air temperature) to evaporative fraction (EF) over both non-forested and forested land surfaces. More importantly, the information transfers from radiation, precipitation, and GPP to EF were significantly reduced at non-forested sites, compared to forested sites. We then applied these observationally constrained metrics as benchmarks to evaluate the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) land model (ELM). ELM predicted vegetation controls on EF relatively well, but underpredicted climate factors on EF, indicating model deficiencies in describing the relationships between atmospheric state and surface fluxes. Moreover, changes in controls on surface energy flux partitioning due to deforestation were not detected in the model. We highlight the need for benchmarking model simulated surface-energy fluxes and the corresponding causal relationships against those of observations, to improve our understanding of model predictability on how deforestation reshapes land surface energy fluxes.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Exploring the environmental drivers of vegetation seasonality changes in the northern extratropical latitudes: a quantitative analysis *

Abstract Vegetation seasonality in the northern extratropical latitudes (NEL) has changed dramatically, but our understanding of how it responds to climate change (e.g. temperature, soil moisture, shortwave radiation) and human activities (e.g. elevated CO 2 concentration) remains insufficient. In this study, we used two remote-sensing-based leaf area index and factorial simulations from the TRENDY models to attribute the changes in the integrated vegetation seasonality index ( S ), which captures both the concentration and magnitude of vegetation growth throughout the year, to climate, CO 2 , and land use and land cover change (LULCC). We found that from 2003 to 2020, the enhanced average S in the NEL (MODIS: 0.0022 yr −1 , p < 0.05; GLOBMAP: 0.0018 yr −1 , p < 0.05; TRENDY S3 [i.e. the scenario considering both time-varying climate, CO 2 , and LULCC]: 0.0011 ± 7.5174 × 10 −4 yr −1 , p < 0.05) was primarily determined by the elevated CO 2 concentration (5.3 × 10 −4 ± 3.8 × 10 −4 yr −1 , p < 0.05) and secondly controlled by the combined climate change (4.6 × 10 −4 ± 6.6 × 10 −4 yr −1 , p > 0.1). Geographically, negative trends in the vegetation growth concentration were dominated by climate change (31.4%), while both climate change (47.9%) and CO 2 (31.9%) contributed to the enhanced magnitude of vegetation growth. Furthermore, around 60% of the study areas showed that simulated major climatic drivers of S variability exhibited the same dominant factor as observed in either the MODIS or GLOBMAP data. Our research emphasizes the crucial connection between environmental factors and vegetation seasonality, providing valuable insights for policymakers and land managers in developing sustainable ecosystem management strategies amidst a changing climate.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Changes in the SST Seasonal Cycle in a Warmer North Pacific without Ocean Dynamical Feedbacks

Climate models project a significant intensification of the sea surface temperature (SST) seasonal cycle over the subpolar North Pacific due to global warming, with the shallower mixed layer widely recognized as the dominant factor. However, employing slab ocean experiments with only ocean–atmosphere thermal coupling, we find a substantial contribution from changes in surface heat flux to this seasonal cycle intensification. In particular, the stronger Newtonian cooling effect in winter acts as a more potent damping than in summer. This differential damping inhibits the warming in colder seasons, significantly contributing to the intensified SST seasonal cycle in the subpolar North Pacific. In addition, consistent phase shifts in the North Pacific are identified across CMIP6 models. In the northwest North Pacific, a phase advance is associated with anomalous heating in early spring, driven by enhanced warm atmospheric advection from lower latitudes and sea ice melting in marginal seas. In contrast, the southeast North Pacific exhibits a phase delay attributed to the anomalous cooling in spring relative to autumn. This cooling is due to weakened trade winds and increased presence of high clouds. In conclusion, the former leads to stronger evaporative cooling in spring, while the latter impedes shortwave radiation from reaching the ocean.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Biophysical Impact of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change on Subgrid Temperature in CMIP6 Models

In this study, we investigate the air temperature response to land-use and land-cover change (LULCC; cropland expansion and deforestation) using subgrid land model output generated by a set of CMIP6 model simulations. Our study is motivated by the fact that ongoing land-use activities are occurring at local scales, typically significantly smaller than the resolvable scale of a grid cell in Earth system models. It aims to explore the potential for a multimodel approach to better characterize LULCC local climatic effects. On an annual scale, the CMIP6 models are in general agreement that croplands are warmer than primary and secondary land (psl; mainly forests, grasslands, and bare ground) in the tropics and cooler in the mid–high latitudes, except for one model. The transition from warming to cooling occurs at approximately 40°N. Although the surface heating potential, which combines albedo and latent heat flux effects, can explain reasonably well the zonal mean latitudinal subgrid temperature variations between crop and psl tiles in the historical simulations, it does not provide a good prediction on subgrid temperature for other land tile configurations (crop vs forest; grass vs forest) under Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 5–8.5 (SSP5–8.5) forcing scenarios. A subset of simulations with the CESM2 model reveals that latitudinal subgrid temperature variation is positively related to variation in net surface shortwave radiation and negatively related to variation in the surface energy redistribution factor, with a dominant role from the latter south of 30°N. We suggest that this emergent relationship can be used to benchmark the performance of land surface parameterizations and for prediction of local temperature response to LULCC.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

A Bimodal Diagnostic Cloud Fraction Parameterization. Part II: Evaluation and Resolution Sensitivity

A wide range of approaches exists to account for subgrid cloud variability in regional simulations of the atmosphere. This paper addresses the following questions: 1) Is there still benefit in representing subgrid variability of cloud in convection-permitting simulations? 2) What is the sensitivity to the cloud fraction parameterization complexity? 3) Are current cloud fraction parameterizations scale-aware across convection-permitting resolutions? These questions are addressed for regional simulations of a 6-week observation campaign in the U.S. southern Great Plains. Particular attention is given to a new diagnostic cloud fraction scheme with a bimodal subgrid saturation-departure PDF, described in Part I. The model evaluation is performed using ground-based remote sensing synergies, satellite-based retrievals, and surface observations. It is shown that not using a cloud fraction parameterization results in underestimated cloud frequency and water content, even for stratocumulus. The use of a cloud fraction parameterization does not guarantee improved cloud property simulations, however. Diagnostic and prognostic cloud schemes with a symmetric subgrid saturation-departure PDF underestimate cloud fraction and cloud optical thickness, and hence overestimate surface shortwave radiation. These schemes require empirical bias-correction techniques to improve the cloud cover. The new cloud fraction parameterization, introduced in Part I, improves cloud cover, liquid water content, cloud-base height, optical thickness, and surface radiation compared to schemes reliant on a symmetric PDF. Furthermore, cloud parameterizations using turbulence-based, rather than prescribed constant subgrid variances, are shown to be more scale-aware across convection-permitting resolutions.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Evaporation Dataset from a Temperate Closed-basin Lake in Minnesota 2014-2016

This data set contains observed and modeled evaporation data, eddy covariance data, and supporting information measured at White Bear Lake in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area near St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. The data package includes csv files containing half-hourly latent heat flux, sensible heat flux, and meteorological data from 2014 to 2016. It also includes csv files containing half-hourly observed evaporation measurements, along with supporting data for validation and retrospective modeling of evaporation. This data was collected to examine current, past, and future lake evaporation to better understand how climate will impact the water balance of lakes within this region.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Hydrologic Model Files (PRMS) for Historical Conditions in the East River Watershed, Colorado between 1987-2019

The data package contains model input and output file for the East River watershed (85 km2) located in the headwaters of the Colorado River. The model is the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Precipitation-Modeling Runoff System (PRMS) for the historical, or baseline, condition (1987-2019) to assess the efficiency of summer monsoon rains to generate streamflow. The finite difference grid resolution is 100 m with elevations resampled from the USGS National Elevation Dataset. LANDFIRE raster data is used to derive parameters of dominant cover type, summer and winter cover density, canopy interception characteristics for snow and rain and transmission coefficient for shortwave radiation. Climate forcing uses minimum and maximum daily temperature lapse rates defined by the two Snow Telemetry (SNOTEL) stations located in the vicinity of the East River adjusted for aspect. Schofield SNOTEL snowfall is spatially distributed using LiDAR derived snow depth observations from the Airborne Snow Observatory (ASO) flown 4 April 2016. Snow depths are converted to snow water equivalent based on ground surveys and density modeling. Rainfall is spatially distributed using the monthly Parameter-elevation Relationships on Independent Slopes Model 30-year monthly averages. Simulated solar radiation is calibrated to match weather station observations. Model verification of snow water equivalent (SWE) accumulation and ablation relies on the 2018 and 2019 ASO maps and weather station snow depth. The data package contains model input files in text format, model documentation in pfd and a readme.txt file to help users understand the file structure to run the program.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

The LAKE model input dataset for three Arctic lakes

This dataset contains meteorological data collected for three Arctic lakes and compiled to satisfy input requirements of the LAKE 2.0 model. The dataset was generated to act as a benchmarking dataset for future model-data inter-comparisons. The LAKE 2.0 model simulates temperatures within the water later and the sedimentary layer of a lake. The LAKE2.0. is an open-source code and available to download via this weblike http://tesla.parallel.ru/Viktor/LAKE/-/wikis/LAKE-model (last visit July 14, 2021). The meteorological data are required to simulate the surface energy balance at the surface of a lake. This dataset includes a compilation of the meteorological data pulled from multiple data streams, including National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) climate data, Circumarctic Lakes Observation Network (CALON) data, and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) data. The data were compiled for three Arctic lakes: FoxDen (66.55877, -164.45670), Atqasuk (70.452497, -156.951984), and Toolik (68.63150, -149.60740). Each meteorological data is in comma-delimited format (file extension ‘.dat’) and includes eight columns: Temperature [K], Pressure [Pa], longwave downward radiation [W/m2], shortwave downward radiation [W/m2], “U” wind speed [m/s], ”V” wind speed [m/s], humidity [kg/kg], precipitation [m/s]. In addition to the meteorological data file, we included setup and driver files. The Toolik lake is the deepest out of three lakes and has inflowing and outflowing groundwater data. InflowOutflowREADME.txt has more information about inflow and outflow flies. The other two lakes are much shallower and modeled as a closed system (i.e. no water inflow or outflow).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Riverbank temperatures on the Selawik River, Alaska 2010-2012, and Koyukuk River, Alaska June to July 2018.

The data package includes temperature measurements from riverbanks along the Selawik and Koyukuk Rivers in northwest Alaska. The Selawik River data also includes meteorological data collected locally and the Koyukuk River includes bulk density and ice content data from the riverbanks. The Selawik River data was collected between 2010 and 2013 with meteorological data collected for the entire time period and riverbank temperatures collected in shorter time intervals between 2010 to 2012. All of the Selawik River data were collected a single river bend. The Koyukuk River temperature data was collected from late June to early July 2018 at a total of five locations on three riverbanks. Ice content measurements on the Koyukuk were made at five riverbank locations. The data collection on both rivers was done in support of studies on the influence of permafrost on riverbank erosion. The temperature data was collected to monitor the thermal conditions of the river banks both seasonally and during periods of erosion. The ice content of the banks was measured to better understand how bank erosion rates are influenced by ice in the frozen riverbanks.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Data and scripts from: “Denoising autoencoder for reconstructing sensor observation data and predicting evapotranspiration: noisy and missing values repair and uncertainty quantification”

This data package includes data and scripts from the manuscript “Denoising autoencoder for reconstructing sensor observation data and predicting evapotranspiration: noisy and missing values repair and uncertainty quantification”.The study addressed common challenges faced in environmental sensing and modeling, including uncertain input data, missing sensor observations, and high-dimensional datasets with interrelated but redundant variables. Point-scaled meteorological and soil sensor observations were perturbed with noises and missing values, and denoising autoencoder (DAE) neural networks were developed to reconstruct the perturbed data and further predict evapotranspiration. This study concluded that (1) the reconstruction quality of each variable depends on its cross-correlation and alignment to the underlying data structure, (2) uncertainties from the models were overall stronger than those from the data corruption, and (3) there was a tradeoff between reducing bias and reducing variance when evaluating the uncertainty of the machine learning models.This package includes:(1) Four ipython scripts (.ipynb): “DAE_train.ipynb” trains and evaluates DAE neural networks, “DAE_predict.ipynb” makes predictions from the trained DAE models, “ET_train.ipynb” trains and evaluates ET prediction neural networks, and “ET_predict.ipynb” makes predictions from trained ET models.(2) One python file (.py): “methods.py” includes all user-defined functions and python codes used in the ipython scripts.(3) A “sub_models” folder that includes five trained DAE neural networks (in pytorch format, .pt), which could be used to ingest input data before being fed to the downstream ET models in ‘ET_train.ipynb” or ‘ET_predict.ipynb’.(4) Two data files (.csv). Daily meteorological, vegetation, and soil data is in “df_data.csv”, where “df_meta.csv” contains the location and time information of “df_data.csv”. Each row (index) in “df_meta.csv” corresponds to each row in “df_data.csv”. These data files are formatted to follow the data structure requirements and be directly used in the ipython scripts, and they have been shuffled chronologically to train machine learning models. The meteorological and soil data was collected using point sensors between 2019-2023 at(4.a) Three shrub-dominated field sites in East River, Colorado (named “ph1”, “ph2” and “sg5” in “df_meta.csv”, where “ph1” and “ph2” were located at PumpHouse Hillslopes, and “sg5” was at Snodgrass Mountain meadow) and(4.b) One outdoor, mesoscale, and herbaceous-dominated experiment in Berkeley, California (named “tb” in “df_meta.csv”, short for Smartsoils Testbed at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab).- See "df_data_dd.csv" and "df_meta_dd.csv" for variable descriptions and the Methods section for additional data processing steps. See "flmd.csv" and "README.txt" for brief file descriptions.- All ipython scripts and python files are written in and require PYTHON language software.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Meteorological and Soil Data from Ecohydrology Sensor Towers at Pump House and Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado, 2019-2025

This data package includes hourly meteorological and soil sensor data at eight ecohydrology monitoring sites in East River Watershed, Colorado as part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) research led by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL). Four field sites were located on the hillslope of East River (ER) near Pump House (PH) at Mount Crested Butte (ER-PHS1 to 4), and the other four are in the Snodgrass Mountain (SG) area (SG-EHS5 to 8). In terms of vegetation cover, three sites are in montane grasslands (ER-PHS1, ER-PHS2, and SG-EHS5), three are below evergreen conifer canopy (ER-PHS3, SG-EHS6, and SG-EHS7), and two are below deciduous aspen canopy (ER-PHS4 and SG-EHS8). The monitoring period began in October 2019 at the East River sites, in October 2020 at SG-EHS5 and SG-EHS6, and in October 2021 at SG-EHS7 and SG-EHS8. In September 2024, all four East River sites were fully retired. The four Snodgrass Mountain sites remain active. Each site is equipped with a comprehensive suite of meteorological sensors on a tripod and soil sensors that measure weather, energy fluxes, and soil variables. This data package includes measurements from ten different types of sensors and up to thirteen individual sensors per site, including (1) a weather station (measurement height ranges from 2.8~3.8 meters (m) above ground), (2) a quantum sensor for photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) (2.4~3.3m), (3) a net radiometer (1.7~2.1m), (4) an infrared radiometer (1.6~2.2m), (5) a sonic distance sensor (1.5~1.9m), (6) a soil carbon dioxide (CO2) flux chamber (0m), (7) a soil heat flux plate (-0.05m below ground), (8) a soil oxygen sensor (-0.3m), (9) a soil water potential sensor (-0.3m), and (10) soil water content sensors at 3~4 depths (-1.15 ~ -0.1m). A total of twenty-three variables is reported in this data package, including (1) atmospheric variables: air temperature (TA), atmospheric pressure (PA), vapor pressure (VP), and vapor pressure deficit (VPD), (2) precipitation variables: rain precipitation (P) and snow depth (D_SNOW), (3) energy fluxes variables: four-component net radiation (NETRAD) (shortwave/longwave incoming/outgoing radiation, SW_IN, SW_OUT, LW_IN, LW_OUT), photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD), and soil heat flux (G), (4) soil variables: soil water content (SWC), soil water potential (SWP), soil temperature (TS), soil bulk electrical conductivity (COND_SOIL), and soil gaseous oxygen concentration (O2_SOIL), (5) wind variables: two-dimensional wind speed (WS), gust speed (WS_MAX), and wind direction (WD), and (6) surface variables: surface infrared temperature (T_CANOPY) and soil CO2 flux (CO2_SOIL). Please see the Methods section for data processing and QA/QC steps taken to generate the hourly datasets. The following files are included in this data package (notes on version: v{x}-{y}, where x is the metadata version, and y is the data version, when applicable): (1) “metadata_site_v{x}-{y}.csv” - a site metadata file that summarizes location information of all sites, including site ID, description, coordinates, timeframe, elevation, and vegetation cover, (2) “metadata_instrument_v{x}-{y}.csv” - an instrument metadata file that summarizes sensor information of all sites, including sensor manufacturer and model, measurement height, and sampling and averaging interval of all variables, (3) "data_{SITE_ID}_v{x}-{y}.csv" - eight data files that contain hourly data of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, (4) “/figure/data_{SITE_ID}_v{x}-{y}.png" - eight figures that help visualize data of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, (5) “/photo/*” - photos of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, and (6) four file level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (*_dd.csv) files that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. Notes: (1) Measurement height: Each variable name is followed by conventional positional qualifiers “H_V_R”, where H indicates the relative horizontal positions of that specific variable, V the vertical positions, and R the replicates. In this data package, only the vertical qualifier V varies, and V increases from the highest vertical position (V=1) to the lowest. Variables with the same qualifier are not necessarily measured by the same sensor, and the same variable with the same qualifier across different sites are not necessarily measured at the same height. Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the sensor information and measurement heights, and whether a variable is measured below the canopy. (2) Variable availability: Snow depth is not available at ER-PHS3 and SG-EHS7. SWC, soil temperature, and soil bulk EC at the deepest depth (<-1m) are not available at SG-EHS6 and SG-EHS7. The missing value code for numeric variables is -9999, except for SWP. For SWP, the missing value code is +9999, because SWP values are negative. (3) Sampling frequency: Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the increase of sampling frequency of some variables from 30-min to 1-min at ER-PHS1 to 4 in July 2020. (4) Sensors: While the methods of each sensor are not detailed, all sensors are commercially available, and their methods can be found in their manuals. Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the sensor manufacturer and model information. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Processes Associated with Boundary Layer Cloud Ice Phase Precipitation in the High Southern Latitudes (Final Technical Report)

This is a final technical report for DOE Award No. DE-SC0018995. Using data collected during the MARCUS deployment of the 2nd ARM mobile facility, this project sought to address the following scientific questions: 1. What are the conditions that govern phase partitioning in supercooled boundary layer clouds over the high latitude Southern Oceans? 2. To what extent are supercooled mixed phase clouds responsible for the high cloud fractions over the Southern Ocean and do these mixed phase clouds contribute to the model biases in absorbed shortwave radiation? 3. Can the cloud properties and phase partitioning over the Southern Ocean be linked to the underlying aerosol environment? 4. How do the aerosol properties at the surface vary spatially and seasonally over the high latitude Southern Ocean and what processes control these features? 5. How well defined are the atmospheric compositional boundaries between Southern Ocean marine, Antarctic free tropospheric, and Antarctic surface airmasses, and how does this influence the chemistry and physics of the Southern Ocean atmosphere? In this project we published three peer review journal articles that address these questions.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Using MARCUS, MICRE, and COMBLE data to improve understanding and modeling of cloud, aerosol, and boundary layer processes at high-latitudes

Because it is believed general circulation (GCM) and numerical weather prediction (NWP) models underestimate shortwave radiation over the Southern Ocean (SO) due to inadequate representations of boundary layer (BL) and cloud processes, it is critical to improve our understanding of key aerosol, cloud, precipitation, and BL processes. Over the north Atlantic Ocean (NA), cold-air outbreaks are common, yet few studies of the aerosol and environmental controls of the associated convective BL clouds exist as needed to develop and evaluate GCM representations. Although processes cannot be observed, cloud and aerosol properties can be measured in-situ or remotely retrieved, which when combined with numerical simulations enable process level understanding required to improve model representations.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Gulf of Mexico Turbulence Intensity Model Data

The dataset is a subset of simulations carried out for the Gulf of Mexico region using the revised Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model version 4.2 that incorporates the implementation of online turbulence intensity (TI) calculations (Tai et al. 2023). The simulated atmospheric profiles near the Shell Exploration and Production Corporation's Tension Leg Platforms Ursa and Mars are archived. Physics parameterizations chosen for the simulations include the Thompson microphysics parameterization, Mellor-Yamada-Nakanishi Niino (MYNN) boundary layer parameterization, Mellor-Yamada-Janjic surface layer parameterization, Unified Noah land-surface parameterization, and the RRTMG longwave and shortwave radiation parameterization. Initial and boundary conditions are taken from NOAA’s High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) product. The JPL 0.01-degree Level 4 Multiscale Ultrahigh Resolution (MUR) Global Foundation Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Analysis (V4.1) data are used as the model’s SST forcing. Simulations are performed from January through June in 2020 and output every 10 minutes, which permits comparison with corresponding lidar observations.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Gulf of Mexico Turbulence Intensity Model Data

The dataset is a subset of simulations carried out for the Gulf of Mexico region using the revised Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model version 4.2 that incorporates the implementation of online turbulence intensity (TI) calculations (Tai et al. 2023). The simulated atmospheric profiles near the Shell Exploration and Production Corporation's Tension Leg Platforms Ursa and Mars are archived. Physics parameterizations chosen for the simulations include the Thompson microphysics parameterization, Mellor-Yamada-Nakanishi Niino (MYNN) boundary layer parameterization, Mellor-Yamada-Janjic surface layer parameterization, Unified Noah land-surface parameterization, and the RRTMG longwave and shortwave radiation parameterization. Initial and boundary conditions are taken from the NOAA’s High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) product. The JPL 0.01-degree Level 4 Multiscale Ultrahigh Resolution (MUR) Global Foundation Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Analysis (V4.1) data are used as the model’s SST forcing. Simulations are performed from January through June in 2020 and output every 10 minutes, which permits comparison with corresponding lidar observations.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Gulf of Mexico Turbulence Intensity Model Data in Observational Space

The dataset archives model-simulated turbulence intensity and meteorological profiles and timeseries at the Shell Exploration and Production Corporation's Tension Leg Platforms Ursa and Mars. The simulated data are interpolated in time and/or space according to observed quantities. The simulations were carried out for the Gulf of Mexico region using the revised Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model version 4.2 that incorporates the implementation of online turbulence intensity (TI) calculations (Tai et al. 2023). The simulated atmospheric profiles near the Shell Exploration and Production Corporation's Tension Leg Platforms Ursa and Mars are archived. Physics parameterizations chosen for the simulations include the Thompson microphysics parameterization, Mellor-Yamada-Nakanishi Niino (MYNN) boundary layer parameterization, Mellor-Yamada-Janjic surface layer parameterization, Unified Noah land-surface parameterization, and the RRTMG longwave and shortwave radiation parameterization. Initial and boundary conditions are taken from NOAA’s High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) product. The JPL 0.01-degree Level 4 Multiscale Ultrahigh Resolution (MUR) Global Foundation Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Analysis (V4.1) data are used as the model’s SST forcing.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Mid-Atlantic Turbulence Intensity Model Data

The dataset is a subset of simulations carried out for the mid-Atlantic region using the revised Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model version 4.2 that incorporates the implementation of online turbulence intensity (TI) calculations (Tai et al. 2023). The simulated atmospheric profiles near the Air-Sea Interaction Tower (ASIT) of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s Martha's Vineyard Coastal Observatory are archived. Physics parameterizations chosen for the simulations include the Thompson microphysics parameterization, Mellor-Yamada-Nakanishi Niino (MYNN) boundary layer parameterization, Mellor-Yamada-Janjic surface layer parameterization, Unified Noah land-surface parameterization, and the RRTMG longwave and shortwave radiation parameterization. Initial and boundary conditions are taken from NOAA’s High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) product. The JPL 0.01-degree Level 4 Multiscale Ultrahigh Resolution (MUR) Global Foundation Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Analysis (V4.1) data are used as the model’s SST forcing. Simulations are performed from February through June in 2020 and output every 10 minutes, which permits comparison with corresponding lidar observations.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Mid-Atlantic Turbulence Intensity Data in Observational Space

The dataset archives observed and model-simulated turbulence intensity and meteorological profiles and timeseries at the Air-Sea Interaction Tower (ASIT) of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s Martha’s Vineyard Coastal Observatory (MVCO). The observational data were measured by lidar and buoy deployed at ASIT. The simulated profiles and timeseries data are interpolated in time and/or space according to observations. Simulations were carried out for the mid-Atlantic region using the revised Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model version 4.2 that incorporates the implementation of online turbulence intensity (TI) calculations (Tai et al. 2023). The simulated atmospheric profiles at the Shell Exploration and Production Corporation's Tension Leg Platforms Ursa and Mars are archived. Physics parameterizations chosen for the simulations include the Thompson microphysics parameterization, Mellor-Yamada-Nakanishi Niino (MYNN) boundary layer parameterization, Mellor-Yamada-Janjic surface layer parameterization, Unified Noah land-surface parameterization, and the RRTMG longwave and shortwave radiation parameterization. Initial and boundary conditions are taken from NOAA’s High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) product. The JPL 0.01-degree Level 4 Multiscale Ultrahigh Resolution (MUR) Global Foundation Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Analysis (V4.1) data are used as the model’s SST forcing.

17 WIND ENERGY↗