English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Air quality forecasting requires atmospheric weather models to generateaccurate meteorological conditions, one of which is the development of theplanetary boundary layer (PBL). An important contributor to the developmentof the PBL is the land–air exchange captured in the energy budget as well asturbulence parameters. Standard and surface energy variables were modeledusing the fifth-generation Penn State/National Center for AtmosphericResearch mesoscale model (MM5), version 3.6.1, and the Weather Research andForecasting (WRF) model, version 3.5.1, and compared to measurements for asoutheastern Texas coastal region. The study period was 28 August–1 September 2006. It also included a frontal passage.  The results of the study are ambiguous. Although WRF does not perform aswell as MM5 in predicting PBL heights, it better simulates energy budget andmost of the general variables. Both models overestimate incoming solarradiation, which implies a surplus of energy that could be redistributed ineither the partitioning of the surface energy variables or in some otheraspect of the meteorological modeling not examined here. The MM5 modelconsistently had much drier conditions than the WRF model, which could leadto more energy available to other parts of the meteorological system. On theclearest day of the study period, MM5 had increased latent heat flux, whichcould lead to higher evaporation rates and lower moisture in the model.However, this latent heat disparity between the two models is not visibleduring any other part of the study. The observed frontal passage affectedthe performance of most of the variables, including the radiation, flux, andturbulence variables, at times creating dramatic differences in the <i>r</i><sup>2</sup>values

MM5 v3.6.1 and WRF v3.5.1 model comparison of standard and surface energy variables in the development of the planetary boundary layer