Articles | Volume 11, issue 7
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-11-2369-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-11-2369-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
08 Jul 2026
Research article |
| 08 Jul 2026
| 08 Jul 2026
A North Sea in situ evaluation of the Fitch wind farm parameterization within the Mellor–Yamada–Nakanishi–Niino and 3D planetary boundary layer schemes
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States
Julie K. Lundquist
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States
National Laboratory of the Rockies, Golden, CO, United States
Timothy W. Juliano
U.S. National Science Foundation National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, United States
AiDASH, Palo Alto, CA 94301, United States
Alex Rybchuk
National Laboratory of the Rockies, Golden, CO, United States
Related authors
Nathan J. Agarwal and Julie K. Lundquist
Wind Energ. Sci., 11, 883–910, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-11-883-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-11-883-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Areas with hills and valleys can be either beneficial or challenging for wind energy applications, depending on the wind patterns. Unfortunately, predicting wind patterns in these areas is also challenging, and investing in measurement towers to improve wind forecasts can be expensive. We evaluate ways in which wind farm developers and other stakeholders interested in improving atmospheric forecasts in these areas can do so in a more cost-effective way.
Valeria Vasquez-Barros, Nicola Bodini, Seth Zippel, Anthony Kirincich, and Julie K. Lundquist
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-115, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-115, 2026
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
Offshore wind turbines operate more than 100 meters above the ocean, but atmospheric conditions are often measured only near the sea surface. Using observations from an offshore research platform, we found that surface measurements frequently do not represent the conditions experienced by turbines because the lower atmosphere can become decoupled. These results highlight the need for measurements throughout the turbine height to improve wind energy forecasting and operations.
Miguel Sanchez-Gomez, Georgios Deskos, Mike Optis, Julie K. Lundquist, Michael Sinner, Geng Xia, and Walter Musial
Wind Energ. Sci., 11, 2009–2036, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-11-2009-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-11-2009-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Mesoscale simulations with the Fitch wind farm parameterization were compared to large-domain large-eddy simulations for three planned offshore wind farms under varied atmospheric conditions. Mesoscale runs captured key wake deficit patterns and stability effects in the wind farm wake evolution but underestimated power losses from internal wakes, especially in aligned winds or stable conditions. Results highlight mesoscale strengths for large-scale wakes and limits for turbine-level losses.
Nicola Bodini, Joseph Olson, Brian Gaudet, Giacomo Valerio Iungo, Mojtaba Shams Solari, Sayahnya Roy, Julie K. Lundquist, Nathan Agarwal, Timothy A. Myers, Bianca Adler, Jeffrey D. Mirocha, Eric James, Laura Bianco, James M. Wilczak, and David D. Turner
Wind Energ. Sci., 11, 1949–1961, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-11-1949-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-11-1949-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
To improve offshore wind forecasts, the Third Wind Forecast Improvement Project monitored the United States east coast for 18 months. We compiled a daily log of weather events using advanced scanners and expert notes. This public dataset identifies important wind patterns, helping scientists test computer models and choose specific cases to study.
Pedro A. Jiménez y Muñoz, Maria Frediani, Masih Eghdami, Daniel Rosen, Michael Kavulich, and Timothy W. Juliano
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 3035–3052, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-3035-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-3035-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We present the Community Fire Behavior model (CFBM) a fire behavior model designed to facilitate coupling to atmospheric models. We describe its implementation in the Unified Forecast System (UFS). Simulations of the Cameron Peak fire allowed us to verify our implementation. Our vision is to foster collaborative development in fire behavior modeling with the ultimate goal of increasing our fundamental understanding of fire science and minimizing the adverse impacts of wildland fires.
Nicola Bodini, Patrick Moriarty, Regis Thedin, Paula Doubrawa, Cristina Archer, Myra Blaylock, Carlo Bottasso, Bruno Carmo, Lawrence Cheung, Camille Dubreuil, Rogier Floors, Thomas Herges, Daniel Houck, Ali Kanjari, Colleen M. Kaul, Christopher Kelley, Ru LI, Julie K. Lundquist, Desirae Major, Anh Kiet Nguyen, Mike Optis, Luan R. C. Parada, Alfredo Peña, Julian Quick, David Ricarte, William C. Radünz, Raj K. Rai, Oscar Garcia Santiago, Jonas Schulte, Knut S. Seim, M. Paul van der Laan, Kisorthman Vimalakanthan, and Adam Wise
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-34, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-34, 2026
Revised manuscript under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
Predicting wind farm energy production is challenging because wind patterns are complex. We tested 16 different models against real data from a major field experiment to see which worked best. Surprisingly, the most expensive and detailed models were not always more accurate than simpler ones. We found that feeding models better weather data was the most effective way to improve accuracy. These results help the industry choose the right tools for designing more efficient wind farms.
Nathan J. Agarwal and Julie K. Lundquist
Wind Energ. Sci., 11, 883–910, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-11-883-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-11-883-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Areas with hills and valleys can be either beneficial or challenging for wind energy applications, depending on the wind patterns. Unfortunately, predicting wind patterns in these areas is also challenging, and investing in measurement towers to improve wind forecasts can be expensive. We evaluate ways in which wind farm developers and other stakeholders interested in improving atmospheric forecasts in these areas can do so in a more cost-effective way.
Kira Gramitzky, Florian Jäger, Doron Callies, Tabea Hildebrand, Julie K. Lundquist, and Lukas Pauscher
Wind Energ. Sci., 11, 861–882, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-11-861-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-11-861-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
This study introduces an extended sea surface levelling method for the accurate offshore calibration of scanning lidars. This method can determine the alignment of the laser beam, including any vertical shift, and is independent of the scan pattern. Tests using real measurement data and a detailed uncertainty study confirm its reliability. The study offers a versatile calibration approach and improves confidence in offshore wind measurements with scanning lidars.
Nicola Bodini, Aliza Abraham, Paula Doubrawa, Stefano Letizia, Julie K. Lundquist, Patrick Moriarty, and Ryan Scott
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-33, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-33, 2026
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
Wind turbines create "wakes" of slowed air that reduce power for nearby turbines. To help improve wind energy models, we analyzed data from a large field experiment. We focused on a single day with changing weather patterns. We found that even simple terrain features interacted with the wind to create large variations in power output – up to 80 percent – across a wind farm. This detailed dataset provides a real-world case needed to validate and improve wind energy design tools.
Georgios Deskos, Jiali Wang, Sanjay Arwade, Murray Fisher, Brian Hirth, Xiaoli Guo Larsén, Julie K. Lundquist, Andrew Myers, Weichiang Pang, William J. Pringle, Robert Rogers, Miguel Sanchez-Gomez, Chao Sun, Atsushi Yamaguchi, and Paul Veers
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-32, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-32, 2026
Revised manuscript under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
Wind energy is increasingly built in coastal and offshore areas exposed to powerful tropical storms. This paper explains why current wind turbine design approaches are often insufficient for these conditions and identifies what must change to improve resilience. By combining insights from weather modeling, engineering, and risk analysis, we highlight key gaps in data and standards, and show how addressing them can enable safer more reliable wind energy in storm-prone regions.
Anna Voss, Konrad B. Bärfuss, Beatriz Cañadillas, Maik Angermann, Mark Bitter, Matthias Cremer, Thomas Feuerle, Jonas Spoor, Julie K. Lundquist, Patrick Moriarty, and Astrid Lampert
Wind Energ. Sci., 11, 71–88, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-11-71-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-11-71-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
This study analyzes onshore wind farm wakes in a semi-complex terrain with data conducted with the research aircraft of TU Braunschweig during the American WAKE experimeNt (AWAKEN). Vertical profiles of temperature, humidity, and wind give insights into the stratification of the atmospheric boundary layer, while horizontal profiles downwind of wind farms reveal an amplification of the reduction in wind speed in a semi-complex terrain, in particular at a distance of 10 km.
Adam S. Wise, Robert S. Arthur, Jeffrey D. Mirocha, Julie K. Lundquist, and Fotini K. Chow
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-246, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-246, 2025
Revised manuscript accepted for WES
Short summary
Short summary
At night, wind farms can experience a wide range of intermittent wind events that can affect how much power is produced. We modeled a specific type of intermittent wind event that happens as the atmosphere gets colder and colder throughout a night. We identified a threshold to determine when these events impact wind farms and ultimately found that mainly the front of a wind farm tends to be most impacted by these sorts of events.
William C. Radünz, Bruno Carmo, Julie K. Lundquist, Stefano Letizia, Aliza Abraham, Adam S. Wise, Miguel Sanchez Gomez, Nicholas Hamilton, Raj K. Rai, and Pedro S. Peixoto
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 2365–2393, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-2365-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-2365-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We explore how simple terrain influences spatial variations in wind speed and wind farm performance during a low-level jet. Using simulations, field observations, and turbine production data, we find that downstream turbines produce more power than upstream ones, despite being subjected to wake effects. This counterintuitive result arises because the low-level jet and winds near turbine rotors are highly sensitive to topographic features, leading to stronger winds at the downstream turbines.
William C. Radünz, Jens H. Kasper, Richard J. A. M. Stevens, and Julie K. Lundquist
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-147, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-147, 2025
Revised manuscript accepted for WES
Short summary
Short summary
Wind farms extract energy from the wind, creating slower, more turbulent flows that can affect other farms downstream. Using high-fidelity simulations for comparison, we find that models using coarser resolution to represent wind farms may underestimate how quickly the wind recovers. This appears to result from missing sharp wind changes and losing turbulence too quickly. Improving these aspects can help better predict wind energy production over long distances.
Geng Xia, Mike Optis, Georgios Deskos, Michael Sinner, Daniel Mulas Hernando, Julie Kay Lundquist, Andrew Kumler, Miguel Sanchez Gomez, Paul Fleming, and Walter Musial
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-154, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-154, 2025
Revised manuscript under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
This study examines energy losses from cluster wakes in offshore wind farms along the U.S. East Coast. Simulations based on real lease projects show that large wind speed deficits do not always cause equally large energy losses. The energy loss method revealed wake areas up to 30 % larger than traditional estimates, underscoring the need to consider both wind speed deficit and energy loss in planning offshore wind development.
Daphne Quint, Julie K. Lundquist, Nicola Bodini, and David Rosencrans
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 1269–1301, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1269-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1269-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Offshore wind farms along the US East Coast can have limited effects on local weather. To study these effects, we include wind farms near Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and we test different amounts of turbulence in our model. We analyze changes in wind, temperature, and turbulence. Simulated effects on surface temperature and turbulence change depending on how much turbulence is added to the model. The extent of the wind farm wake depends on how deep the atmospheric boundary layer is.
Robert S. Arthur, Alex Rybchuk, Timothy W. Juliano, Gabriel Rios, Sonia Wharton, Julie K. Lundquist, and Jerome D. Fast
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 1187–1209, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1187-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1187-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This paper evaluates a new model configuration for wind energy forecasting in complex terrain. We compare model results to observations in the Altamont Pass (California, USA), where wind channeling through a mountain gap leads to increased energy production. We demonstrate that the new model configuration performs similarly to a more established approach, with some evidence of improved wind speed predictions, and provide guidance for future model testing.
Ye Liu, Timothy W. Juliano, Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Brian J. Gaudet, and Jungmin Lee
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 483–495, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-483-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-483-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our study reveals how different weather patterns influence wind conditions off the US West Coast. We identified key weather patterns affecting wind speeds at potential wind farm sites using advanced machine learning. This research helps improve weather prediction models, making wind energy production more reliable and efficient.
Daphne Quint, Julie K. Lundquist, and David Rosencrans
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 117–142, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-117-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-117-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Offshore wind farms will be built along the East Coast of the United States. Low-level jets (LLJs) – layers of fast winds at low altitudes – also occur here. LLJs provide wind resources and also influence moisture and pollution transport, so it is important to understand how they might change. We develop and validate an automated tool to detect LLJs and compare 1 year of simulations with and without wind farms. Here, we describe LLJ characteristics and how they change with wind farms.
David Rosencrans, Julie K. Lundquist, Mike Optis, and Nicola Bodini
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 59–81, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-59-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-59-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The US offshore wind industry is growing rapidly. Expansion into cold climates will subject turbines and personnel to hazardous icing. We analyze the 21-year icing risk for US east coast wind areas based on numerical weather prediction simulations and further assess impacts from wind farm wakes over one winter season. Sea spray icing at 10 m can occur up to 67 h per month. However, turbine–atmosphere interactions reduce icing hours within wind plant areas.
Rachel Robey and Julie K. Lundquist
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 1905–1922, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1905-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1905-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Measurements of wind turbine wakes with scanning lidar instruments contain complex errors. We model lidars in a simulated environment to understand how and why the measured wake may differ from the true wake and validate the results with observational data. The lidar smooths out the wake, making it seem more spread out and the slowdown of the winds less pronounced. Our findings provide insights into best practices for accurately measuring wakes with lidar and interpreting observational data.
Nicola Bodini, Mike Optis, Stephanie Redfern, David Rosencrans, Alex Rybchuk, Julie K. Lundquist, Vincent Pronk, Simon Castagneri, Avi Purkayastha, Caroline Draxl, Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Ethan Young, Billy Roberts, Evan Rosenlieb, and Walter Musial
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 1965–2006, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-1965-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-1965-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This article presents the 2023 National Offshore Wind data set (NOW-23), an updated resource for offshore wind information in the US. It replaces the Wind Integration National Dataset (WIND) Toolkit, offering improved accuracy through advanced weather prediction models. The data underwent regional tuning and validation and can be accessed at no cost.
David Rosencrans, Julie K. Lundquist, Mike Optis, Alex Rybchuk, Nicola Bodini, and Michael Rossol
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 555–583, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-555-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-555-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The US offshore wind industry is developing rapidly. Using yearlong simulations of wind plants in the US mid-Atlantic, we assess the impacts of wind turbine wakes. While wakes are the strongest and longest during summertime stably stratified conditions, when New England grid demand peaks, they are predictable and thus manageable. Over a year, wakes reduce power output by over 35 %. Wakes in a wind plant contribute the most to that reduction, while wakes between wind plants play a secondary role.
Timothy W. Juliano, Fernando Szasdi-Bardales, Neil P. Lareau, Kasra Shamsaei, Branko Kosović, Negar Elhami-Khorasani, Eric P. James, and Hamed Ebrahimian
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 47–52, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-47-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-47-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Following the destructive Lahaina Fire in Hawaii, our team has modeled the wind and fire spread processes to understand the drivers of this devastating event. The simulation results show that extreme winds with high variability, a fire ignition close to the community, and construction characteristics led to continued fire spread in multiple directions. Our results suggest that available modeling capabilities can provide vital information to guide decision-making during wildfire events.
Tasnim Zaman, Timothy Juliano, Pat Hawbecker, and Marina Astitha
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2023-148, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2023-148, 2024
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
Short summary
We suggest a model configuration to predict offshore wind speed and wind power density in the Northeast US. We focused on wind droughts, long periods of low wind speed that affect the reliability of wind power generation. We show that wind prediction depends primarily on the initial and boundary conditions, and that it is important to evaluate the connection of wind speed to wind power generation, to select the best model configuration.
Sue Ellen Haupt, Branko Kosović, Larry K. Berg, Colleen M. Kaul, Matthew Churchfield, Jeffrey Mirocha, Dries Allaerts, Thomas Brummet, Shannon Davis, Amy DeCastro, Susan Dettling, Caroline Draxl, David John Gagne, Patrick Hawbecker, Pankaj Jha, Timothy Juliano, William Lassman, Eliot Quon, Raj K. Rai, Michael Robinson, William Shaw, and Regis Thedin
Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 1251–1275, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1251-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1251-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Mesoscale to Microscale Coupling team, part of the U.S. Department of Energy Atmosphere to Electrons (A2e) initiative, has studied various important challenges related to coupling mesoscale models to microscale models. Lessons learned and discerned best practices are described in the context of the cases studied for the purpose of enabling further deployment of wind energy. It also points to code, assessment tools, and data for testing the methods.
Miguel Sanchez Gomez, Julie K. Lundquist, Jeffrey D. Mirocha, and Robert S. Arthur
Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 1049–1069, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1049-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1049-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The wind slows down as it approaches a wind plant; this phenomenon is called blockage. As a result, the turbines in the wind plant produce less power than initially anticipated. We investigate wind plant blockage for two atmospheric conditions. Blockage is larger for a wind plant compared to a stand-alone turbine. Also, blockage increases with atmospheric stability. Blockage is amplified by the vertical transport of horizontal momentum as the wind approaches the front-row turbines in the array.
Paul Veers, Katherine Dykes, Sukanta Basu, Alessandro Bianchini, Andrew Clifton, Peter Green, Hannele Holttinen, Lena Kitzing, Branko Kosovic, Julie K. Lundquist, Johan Meyers, Mark O'Malley, William J. Shaw, and Bethany Straw
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2491–2496, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2491-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2491-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Wind energy will play a central role in the transition of our energy system to a carbon-free future. However, many underlying scientific issues remain to be resolved before wind can be deployed in the locations and applications needed for such large-scale ambitions. The Grand Challenges are the gaps in the science left behind during the rapid growth of wind energy. This article explains the breadth of the unfinished business and introduces 10 articles that detail the research needs.
Alex Rybchuk, Timothy W. Juliano, Julie K. Lundquist, David Rosencrans, Nicola Bodini, and Mike Optis
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2085–2098, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2085-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2085-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Numerical weather prediction models are used to predict how wind turbines will interact with the atmosphere. Here, we characterize the uncertainty associated with the choice of turbulence parameterization on modeled wakes. We find that simulated wind speed deficits in turbine wakes can be significantly sensitive to the choice of turbulence parameterization. As such, predictions of future generated power are also sensitive to turbulence parameterization choice.
Rachel Robey and Julie K. Lundquist
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 4585–4622, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4585-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4585-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Our work investigates the behavior of errors in remote-sensing wind lidar measurements due to turbulence. Using a virtual instrument, we measured winds in simulated atmospheric flows and decomposed the resulting error. Dominant error mechanisms, particularly vertical velocity variations and interactions with shear, were identified in ensemble data over three test cases. By analyzing the underlying mechanisms, the response of the error behavior to further varying flow conditions may be projected.
Vincent Pronk, Nicola Bodini, Mike Optis, Julie K. Lundquist, Patrick Moriarty, Caroline Draxl, Avi Purkayastha, and Ethan Young
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 487–504, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-487-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-487-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we have assessed to which extent mesoscale numerical weather prediction models are more accurate than state-of-the-art reanalysis products in characterizing the wind resource at heights of interest for wind energy. The conclusions of our work will be of primary importance to the wind industry for recommending the best data sources for wind resource modeling.
Adam S. Wise, James M. T. Neher, Robert S. Arthur, Jeffrey D. Mirocha, Julie K. Lundquist, and Fotini K. Chow
Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 367–386, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-367-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-367-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Wind turbine wake behavior in hilly terrain depends on various atmospheric conditions. We modeled a wind turbine located on top of a ridge in Portugal during typical nighttime and daytime atmospheric conditions and validated these model results with observational data. During nighttime conditions, the wake deflected downwards following the terrain. During daytime conditions, the wake deflected upwards. These results can provide insight into wind turbine siting and operation in hilly regions.
Hannah Livingston, Nicola Bodini, and Julie K. Lundquist
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-68, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-68, 2021
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we assess whether hub-height turbulence can easily be quantified from either other hub-height variables or ground-level measurements in complex terrain. We find a large variability across the three considered locations when trying to model hub-height turbulence intensity and turbulence kinetic energy. Our results highlight the nonlinear and complex nature of atmospheric turbulence, so that more powerful techniques should instead be recommended to model hub-height turbulence.
Miguel Sanchez Gomez, Julie K. Lundquist, Petra M. Klein, and Tyler M. Bell
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 3539–3549, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3539-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3539-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In July 2018, the International Society for Atmospheric Research using Remotely-piloted Aircraft (ISARRA) hosted a flight week to demonstrate unmanned aircraft systems' capabilities in sampling the atmospheric boundary layer. Three Doppler lidars were deployed during this week-long experiment. We use data from these lidars to estimate turbulence dissipation rate. We observe large temporal variability and significant differences in dissipation for lidars with different sampling techniques.
Cited articles
Abkar, M. and Porté-Agel, F.: A new wind-farm parameterization for large-scale atmospheric models, J. Renew. Sustain. Ener., 7, 013121, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4907600, 2015. a, b
Adams, A. S. and Keith, D. W.: Are global wind power resource estimates overstated?, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 015021, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015021, 2013. a
Agarwal, N. J.: 3DPBL Fitch North Sea, Zenodo [code, data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14751600, 2025. a, b
Ali, K., Schultz, D. M., Revell, A., Stallard, T., and Ouro, P.: Assessment of five wind-farm parameterizations in the Weather Research and Forecasting model: A case study of wind farms in the North Sea, Mon. Weather Rev., 151, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-23-0006.1, 2023. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m
Archer, C. L., Wu, S., Ma, Y., and Jiménez, P. A.: Two Corrections for Turbulent Kinetic Energy Generated by Wind Farms in the WRF Model, Mon. Weather Rev., 148, 4823–4835, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-20-0097.1, 2020. a, b, c
Arthur, R. S., Juliano, T. W., Adler, B., Krishnamurthy, R., Lundquist, J. K., Kosović, B., and Jiménez, P. A.: Improved Representation of Horizontal Variability and Turbulence in Mesoscale Simulations of an Extended Cold-Air Pool Event, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 61, 685–707, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-21-0138.1, 2022. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h
Arthur, R. S., Rybchuk, A., Juliano, T. W., Rios, G., Wharton, S., Lundquist, J. K., and Fast, J. D.: Evaluating mesoscale model predictions of diurnal speedup events in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area of California, Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 1187–1209, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1187-2025, 2025. a, b, c, d, e, f
Backwell, B., Lee, J., Patel, A., Qiao, L., Nguyen, T., Liang, W., Fang, E., Cheong, J., Tan, W. H., Francisco, A. M., Bui, T. V., Nguyen, T., Fiestas, R., Cox, R., de Lima, J. P., Rabie, H., Ladwa, R., Madan, K., Muchiri, W., Weekes, N., Khinda, N., and Yamamura, J.: Global Offshore Wind Report, https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/GOWR-2024.pdf (last access: 29 January 2025), 2024. a
Baidya Roy, S., Pacala, S. W., and Walko, R. L.: Can large wind farms affect local meteorology?, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 109, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004763, 2004. a
Bärfuss, K., Hankers, R., Bitter, M., Feuerle, T., Schulz, H., Rausch, T., Platis, A., Bange, J., and Lampert, A.: In-situ airborne measurements of atmospheric and sea surface parameters related to offshore wind parks in the German Bight, Flight 20171014_flight39, PANGAEA [data set], https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.903088, 2019. a
Blackadar, A. K.: The vertical distribution of wind and turbulent exchange in a neutral atmosphere, J. Geophys. Res., 67, 3095–3102, https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ067i008p03095, 1962. a
Bodini, N., Lundquist, J. K., and Optis, M.: Can machine learning improve the model representation of turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate in the boundary layer for complex terrain?, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4271–4285, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4271-2020, 2020. a
Corsmeier, U., Hankers, R., and Wieser, A.: Airborne turbulence measurements in the lower troposphere onboard the research aircraft Dornier 128-6, D-IBUF, Meteorol. Z., 315–329, https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2001/0010-0315, 2001. a
Daewel, U., Akhtar, N., Christiansen, N., and Schrum, C.: Offshore wind farms are projected to impact primary production and bottom water deoxygenation in the North Sea, Communications Earth & Environment, 3, 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00625-0, 2022. a
Draxl, C., Hahmann, A. N., Peña, A., and Giebel, G.: Evaluating winds and vertical wind shear from Weather Research and Forecasting model forecasts using seven planetary boundary layer schemes, Wind Energy, 17, 39–55, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.1555, 2014. a, b
Eghdami, M., Barros, A. P., Jiménez, P. A., Juliano, T. W., and Kosovic, B.: Diagnosis of Second-Order Turbulent Properties of the Surface Layer for Three-Dimensional Flow Based on the Mellor–Yamada Model, Mon. Weather Rev., https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-21-0101.1, 2022. a
Fischereit, J., Brown, R., Larsén, X. G., Badger, J., and Hawkes, G.: Review of Mesoscale Wind-Farm Parametrizations and Their Applications, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 182, 175–224, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-021-00652-y, 2022a. a, b, c, d
Fischereit, J., Larsén, X. G., and Hahmann, A. N.: Climatic Impacts of Wind-Wave-Wake Interactions in Offshore Wind Farms, Frontiers in Energy Research, 10, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.881459, 2022b. a
Fitch, A. C., Olson, J. B., and Lundquist, J. K.: Parameterization of Wind Farms in Climate Models, J. Climate, 26, 6439–6458, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00376.1, 2013. a
García-Santiago, O., Hahmann, A. N., Badger, J., and Peña, A.: Evaluation of wind farm parameterizations in the WRF model under different atmospheric stability conditions with high-resolution wake simulations, Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 963–979, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-963-2024, 2024. a, b, c, d
Gaudet, B. J., Medina, G. G., Krishnamurthy, R., Sheridan, L. M., Yang, Z., Newsom, R. K., Pekour, M. S., Gustafson, W. I., and Liu, J.: Assessing Impacts of Waves on Hub-Height Winds off the U.S. West Coast Using Lidar Buoys and Coupled Modeling Approaches, Tech. Rep. PNNL-35856, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States), https://doi.org/10.2172/2337529, 2024. a
Hahmann, A. N., Sīle, T., Witha, B., Davis, N. N., Dörenkämper, M., Ezber, Y., García-Bustamante, E., González-Rouco, J. F., Navarro, J., Olsen, B. T., and Söderberg, S.: The making of the New European Wind Atlas – Part 1: Model sensitivity, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 5053–5078, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5053-2020, 2020. a, b
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons, A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati, G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D., Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M., Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P., Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.: The ERA5 global reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020. a
Hong, S.-Y., Lim, K.-S. S., Lee, Y.-H., Ha, J.-C., Kim, H.-W., Ham, S.-J., and Dudhia, J.: Evaluation of the WRF Double-Moment 6-Class Microphysics Scheme for Precipitating Convection, Adv. Meteorol., 2010, e707253, https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/707253, 2010. a
Jankov, I., Gallus, W. A., Segal, M., Shaw, B., and Koch, S. E.: The Impact of Different WRF Model Physical Parameterizations and Their Interactions on Warm Season MCS Rainfall, Weather Forecast., 20, 1048–1060, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF888.1, 2005. a
Juliano, T. W., Kosović, B., Jiménez, P. A., Eghdami, M., Haupt, S. E., and Martilli, A.: “Gray Zone” Simulations Using a Three-Dimensional Planetary Boundary Layer Parameterization in the Weather Research and Forecasting Model, Mon. Weather Rev., 150, 1585–1619, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-21-0164.1, 2022. a, b, c, d, e
Kain, J. S.: The Kain–Fritsch Convective Parameterization: An Update, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 43, 170–181, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(2004)043<0170:TKCPAU>2.0.CO;2, 2004. a
Kirincich, A., Krishnamurthy, R., Turner, D. D., Adler, B., Agarwal, N., Berg, L. K., Bianco, L., Bodini, N., Chabert d'Hieres, M., Farrar, J. T., Fernando, H. J. S., Gaudet, B., Ghate, V. P., Goldberger, L., Gonzalez, A. O., Hall, E., Hodges, G., Iungo, G. V., Jackson, R., Jiang, H., Kinsella, A., Kosovic, B., Kotamarthi, R., Letizia, S., Lipari, S., Lundquist, J. K., Mirocha, J., Moss, C., Muradyan, P., Myers, T., Newsom, R. K., O'Brien, J., Olson, J. B., Pekour, M., Puccioni, M., Rosencrans, D., Roy, S., Sauvage, C., Sedlar, J., Seo, H., Shams Solari, M., Soldo, L., Stierle, S., Sun, X., Thompson, E., Traiger, E., Wharton, S., Wilczak, J., and Zippel, S.: Improving the Understanding and Forecasting of Winds over the Northeast U. S. Shelf: The Third Wind Forecast Improvement Project (WFIP3), B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., submitted, 2026. a
Kosović, B., Munoz, P. J., Juliano, T. W., Martilli, A., Eghdami, M., Barros, A. P., and Haupt, S. E.: Three-Dimensional Planetary Boundary Layer Parameterization for High-Resolution Mesoscale Simulations, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 1452, 012080, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1452/1/012080, 2020. a, b, c
Larsén, X. G. and Fischereit, J.: A case study of wind farm effects using two wake parameterizations in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model (V3.7.1) in the presence of low-level jets, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3141–3158, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3141-2021, 2021. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p
Larsén, X. G., Fischereit, J., Hamzeloo, S., Bärfuss, K., and Lampert, A.: Investigation of wind farm impacts on surface waves using coupled numerical simulations, Renewable Energy, 237, 121671, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2024.121671, 2024. a, b, c, d
Lee, J. C. Y. and Lundquist, J. K.: Evaluation of the wind farm parameterization in the Weather Research and Forecasting model (version 3.8.1) with meteorological and turbine power data, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4229–4244, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4229-2017, 2017. a
Li, X. and Pu, Z.: Sensitivity of Numerical Simulation of Early Rapid Intensification of Hurricane Emily (2005) to Cloud Microphysical and Planetary Boundary Layer Parameterizations, Mon. Weather Rev., 136, 4819–4838, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008MWR2366.1, 2008. a
Ma, Y., Archer, C. L., and Vasel-Be-Hagh, A.: The Jensen wind farm parameterization, Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2407–2431, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2407-2022, 2022. a
Mangara, R. J., Guo, Z., and Li, S.: Performance of the Wind Farm Parameterization Scheme Coupled with the Weather Research and Forecasting Model under Multiple Resolution Regimes for Simulating an Onshore Wind Farm, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 36, 119–132, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-018-8028-3, 2019. a, b, c, d, e
Mann, H. B. and Whitney, D. R.: On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other, Ann. Math. Stat., 18, 50–60, https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730491, 1947. a
Mellor, G. L. and Yamada, T.: Development of a turbulence closure model for geophysical fluid problems, Rev. Geophys., 20, 851–875, https://doi.org/10.1029/RG020i004p00851, 1982. a, b, c, d
Mittelmeier, N., Allin, J., Blodau, T., Trabucchi, D., Steinfeld, G., Rott, A., and Kühn, M.: An analysis of offshore wind farm SCADA measurements to identify key parameters influencing the magnitude of wake effects, Wind Energ. Sci., 2, 477–490, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2-477-2017, 2017. a
Mlawer, E. J., Taubman, S. J., Brown, P. D., Iacono, M. J., and Clough, S. A.: Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the longwave, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 102, 16663–16682, https://doi.org/10.1029/97JD00237, 1997. a
Moriarty, P., Bodini, N., Letizia, S., Abraham, A., Ashley, T., Bärfuss, K. B., Barthelmie, R. J., Brewer, A., Brugger, P., Feuerle, T., Frère, A., Goldberger, L., Gottschall, J., Hamilton, N., Herges, T., Hirth, B., Hung, L.-Y. L., Iungo, G. V., Ivanov, H., Kaul, C., Kern, S., Klein, P., Krishnamurthy, R., Lampert, A., Lundquist, J. K., Morris, V. R., Newsom, R., Pekour, M., Pichugina, Y., Porté-Angel, F., Pryor, S. C., Scholbrock, A., Schroeder, J., Shartzer, S., Simley, E., Vöhringer, L., Wharton, S., and Zalkind, D.: Overview of preparation for the American WAKE ExperimeNt (AWAKEN), J. Renew. Sustain. Ener., 16, 053306, https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0141683, 2024. a
Nakanishi, M. and Niino, H.: Development of an Improved Turbulence Closure Model for the Atmospheric Boundary Layer, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. Ser. II, 87, 895–912, https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.87.895, 2009. a, b
Niu, G.-Y., Yang, Z.-L., Mitchell, K. E., Chen, F., Ek, M. B., Barlage, M., Kumar, A., Manning, K., Niyogi, D., Rosero, E., Tewari, M., and Xia, Y.: The community Noah land surface model with multiparameterization options (Noah-MP): 1. Model description and evaluation with local-scale measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 116, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015139, 2011. a
Nolan, D. S., Stern, D. P., and Zhang, J. A.: Evaluation of Planetary Boundary Layer Parameterizations in Tropical Cyclones by Comparison of In Situ Observations and High-Resolution Simulations of Hurricane Isabel (2003). Part II: Inner-Core Boundary Layer and Eyewall Structure, Mon. Weather Rev., 137, 3675–3698, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009MWR2786.1, 2009. a
Olsen, B. T. E., Hahmann, A. N., Alonso-de-Linaje, N. G., Žagar, M., and Dörenkämper, M.: Low-level jets in the North and Baltic seas: mesoscale model sensitivity and climatology using WRF V4.2.1, Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4499–4533, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4499-2025, 2025. a, b
Optis, M.: Veer_Renewables_WakeMap_Validation_FINO
_Towers_2024_05, https://veer.eco/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Veer_Renewables_WakeMap_Validation_FINO_Towers_2024_05.pdf (last access: 29 January 2025), 2024. a
_Towers_2024_05, https://veer.eco/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Veer_Renewables_WakeMap_Validation_FINO_Towers_2024_05.pdf (last access: 29 January 2025), 2024. a
Optis, M. and Perr-Sauer, J.: The importance of atmospheric turbulence and stability in machine-learning models of wind farm power production, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 112, 27–41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.031, 2019. a
Optis, M., Bodini, N., Debnath, M., and Doubrawa, P.: Best Practices for the Validation of U.S. Offshore Wind Resource Models, Tech. Rep. NREL/TP–5000-78375, 1755697, MainId:32292, https://doi.org/10.2172/1755697, 2020. a, b
Pan, Y. and Archer, C. L.: A Hybrid Wind-Farm Parametrization for Mesoscale and Climate Models, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 168, 469–495, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-018-0351-9, 2018. a, b
Platis, A., Siedersleben, S. K., Bange, J., Lampert, A., Bärfuss, K., Hankers, R., Cañadillas, B., Foreman, R., Schulz-Stellenfleth, J., Djath, B., Neumann, T., and Emeis, S.: First in situ evidence of wakes in the far field behind offshore wind farms, Scientific Reports, 8, 2163, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20389-y, 2018. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j
Pryor, S. C., Shepherd, T. J., Volker, P. J. H., Hahmann, A. N., and Barthelmie, R. J.: “Wind Theft” from Onshore Wind Turbine Arrays: Sensitivity to Wind Farm Parameterization and Resolution, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 59, 153–174, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0235.1, 2020. a, b
Quint, D., Lundquist, J. K., Bodini, N., and Rosencrans, D.: Simulated meteorological impacts of offshore wind turbines and sensitivity to the amount of added turbulence kinetic energy, Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 1269–1301, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-1269-2025, 2025. a
Raghukumar, K., Chartrand, C., Chang, G., Cheung, L., and Roberts, J.: Effect of Floating Offshore Wind Turbines on Atmospheric Circulation in California, Frontiers in Energy Research, 10, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.863995, 2022. a
Raghukumar, K., Nelson, T., Jacox, M., Chartrand, C., Fiechter, J., Chang, G., Cheung, L., and Roberts, J.: Projected cross-shore changes in upwelling induced by offshore wind farm development along the California coast, Communications Earth & Environment, 4, 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00780-y, 2023. a
Rajewski, D. A., Takle, E. S., Prueger, J. H., and Doorenbos, R. K.: Toward understanding the physical link between turbines and microclimate impacts from in situ measurements in a large wind farm, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 13,392–13,414, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025297, 2016. a
Ramdas, A., Garcia, N., and Cuturi, M.: On Wasserstein Two Sample Testing and Related Families of Nonparametric Tests, arXiv [preprint], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1509.02237, 2015. a
Redfern, S., Olson, J. B., Lundquist, J. K., and Clack, C. T. M.: Incorporation of the Rotor-Equivalent Wind Speed into the Weather Research and Forecasting Model’s Wind Farm Parameterization, Mon. Weather Rev., 147, 1029–1046, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0194.1, 2019. a
Rybchuk, A., Juliano, T. W., Lundquist, J. K., Rosencrans, D., Bodini, N., and Optis, M.: The sensitivity of the Fitch wind farm parameterization to a three-dimensional planetary boundary layer scheme, Wind Energ. Sci., 7, 2085–2098, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2085-2022, 2022. a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Sanchez Gomez, M., Deskos, G., Lundquist, J. K., and Juliano, T. W.: Can mesoscale models capture the effect from cluster wakes offshore?, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 2767, 062013, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2767/6/062013, 2024. a, b, c, d
Shchepetkin, A. F. and McWilliams, J. C.: The regional oceanic modeling system (ROMS): a split-explicit, free-surface, topography-following-coordinate oceanic model, Ocean Model., 9, 347–404, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2004.08.002, 2005. a
Shepherd, T. J., Barthelmie, R. J., and Pryor, S. C.: Sensitivity of Wind Turbine Array Downstream Effects to the Parameterization Used in WRF, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 59, 333–361, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0135.1, 2020. a
Sheridan, L. M., Krishnamurthy, R., Gustafson Jr., W. I., Liu, Y., Gaudet, B. J., Bodini, N., Newsom, R. K., and Pekour, M.: Offshore low-level jet observations and model representation using lidar buoy data off the California coast, Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 741–758, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-741-2024, 2024. a
Shin, H. H. and Hong, S.-Y.: Intercomparison of Planetary Boundary-Layer Parametrizations in the WRF Model for a Single Day from CASES-99, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 139, 261–281, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-010-9583-z, 2011. a
Siedersleben, S. K., Lundquist, J. K., Platis, A., Bange, J., Bärfuss, K., Lampert, A., Cañadillas, B., Neumann, T., and Emeis, S.: Micrometeorological impacts of offshore wind farms as seen in observations and simulations, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 124012, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaea0b, 2018a. a, b
Siedersleben, S. K., Platis, A., Lundquist, J. K., Lampert, A., Bärfuss, K., Cañadillas, B., Djath, B., Schulz-Stellenfleth, J., Bange, J., Neumann, T., and Emeis, S.: Evaluation of a Wind Farm Parametrization for Mesoscale Atmospheric Flow Models with Aircraft Measurements, Meteorol. Z., 401–415, https://doi.org/10.1127/metz/2018/0900, 2018b. a, b
Siedersleben, S. K., Platis, A., Lundquist, J. K., Djath, B., Lampert, A., Bärfuss, K., Cañadillas, B., Schulz-Stellenfleth, J., Bange, J., Neumann, T., and Emeis, S.: Turbulent kinetic energy over large offshore wind farms observed and simulated by the mesoscale model WRF (3.8.1), Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 249–268, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-249-2020, 2020. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m
Skamarock, C., Klemp, B., Dudhia, J., Gill, O., Liu, Z., Berner, J., Wang, W., Powers, G., Duda, G., Barker, D., and Huang, X.-Y.: A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Model Version 4.3, https://doi.org/10.5065/1dfh-6p97, 2021. a, b
Smagorinsky, J.: General Circulation Experiments with the Primitive Equations, Mon. Weather Rev., https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1963)091<0099:GCEWTP>2.3.CO;2, 1963. a
Storm, B., Dudhia, J., Basu, S., Swift, A., and Giammanco, I.: Evaluation of the Weather Research and Forecasting model on forecasting low-level jets: implications for wind energy, Wind Energy, 12, 81–90, https://doi.org/10.1002/we.288, 2009. a, b
Tomaszewski, J. M. and Lundquist, J. K.: Simulated wind farm wake sensitivity to configuration choices in the Weather Research and Forecasting model version 3.8.1, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2645–2662, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2645-2020, 2020. a, b
Vanderwende, B. J., Kosović, B., Lundquist, J. K., and Mirocha, J. D.: Simulating effects of a wind-turbine array using LES and RANS, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 8, 1376–1390, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016MS000652, 2016. a, b, c, d
Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J., van der Walt, S. J., Brett, M., Wilson, J., Millman, K. J., Mayorov, N., Nelson, A. R. J., Jones, E., Kern, R., Larson, E., Carey, C. J., Polat, I., Feng, Y., Moore, E. W., VanderPlas, J., Laxalde, D., Perktold, J., Cimrman, R., Henriksen, I., Quintero, E. A., Harris, C. R., Archibald, A. M., Ribeiro, A. H., Pedregosa, F., and van Mulbregt, P.: SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python, Nat. Methods, 17, 261–272, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2, 2020. a, b
Volker, P. J. H., Badger, J., Hahmann, A. N., and Ott, S.: The Explicit Wake Parametrisation V1.0: a wind farm parametrisation in the mesoscale model WRF, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3715–3731, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3715-2015, 2015. a, b, c, d
Wadler, J. B., Nolan, D. S., Zhang, J. A., Shay, L. K., Olson, J. B., and Cione, J. J.: The Effect of Advection on the Three Dimensional Distribution of Turbulent Kinetic Energy and Its Generation in Idealized Tropical Cyclone Simulations, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 15, e2022MS003230, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS003230, 2023. a
Wyngaard, J. C.: Toward Numerical Modeling in the “Terra Incognita”, J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 1816–1826, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061<1816:TNMITT>2.0.CO;2, 2004. a
Yang, B., Qian, Y., Berg, L. K., Ma, P.-L., Wharton, S., Bulaevskaya, V., Yan, H., Hou, Z., and Shaw, W. J.: Sensitivity of Turbine-Height Wind Speeds to Parameters in Planetary Boundary-Layer and Surface-Layer Schemes in the Weather Research and Forecasting Model, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 162, 117–142, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-016-0185-2, 2017. a
Zhang, D.-L. and Zheng, W.-Z.: Diurnal Cycles of Surface Winds and Temperatures as Simulated by Five Boundary Layer Parameterizations, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 43, 157–169, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(2004)043<0157:DCOSWA>2.0.CO;2, 2004. a
Zhang, X., Bao, J.-W., Chen, B., and Grell, E. D.: A Three-Dimensional Scale-Adaptive Turbulent Kinetic Energy Scheme in the WRF-ARW Model, Mon. Weather Rev., https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0356.1, 2018. a, b
Short summary
Models of wind behavior inform offshore wind farm site investment decisions. Here we compare a newly developed model to another, historically used model based on how these models represent winds and turbulence at two North Sea sites. The best model depends on the site. While the older model performs best at the site above a wind farm, the newer model performs best at the site that is at the same altitude as the wind farm. We support using the new model to represent winds at the turbine level.
Models of wind behavior inform offshore wind farm site investment decisions. Here we compare a...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint