the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Characterization of HRRR simulated Rotor Layer Wind Speeds and Clouds along Coast of California
Abstract. Stratocumulus clouds, with their low cloud base and top, affects the atmospheric boundary layer wind and turbulence profile, modulating wind energy resources. GOES satellite data reveals an abundance of stratocumulus clouds in late spring and summer months off the coast of Northern and Central California where there are active plans to deploy floating offshore wind farms at two lease areas (near Morro Bay and Humboldt). From fall 2020, two buoys with multiple instrumentations including lidar were deployed for about 1 year in these wind farm lease areas to assess the wind energy resources in these locations. In this study, we characterize the stratocumulus cloud properties and wind speed at turbine-relevant rotor layer (from surface to 300 m above sea level) in both buoy observations and the High Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) model. First, we find that HRRR numerical model reproduces the seasonal cycle of cloud top height quite well in these locations. However, during the warm season, especially at Morro Bay, we find the stratocumulus clouds simulated by HRRR tend to have lower cloud tops by about 150 m and weaker diurnal cycles compared to the satellite reported cloud observations. Next, our findings show that the wind speed and vertical shear are stronger in Humboldt location than in Morro Bay. Also, those fields are stronger under clear sky conditions in both locations. Finally, our findings suggest that the model bias in rotor layer wind speed is small under cloudy conditions, while the bias is large and increases with observed wind speed under clear sky condition. At Morro Bay, the model under clear-sky condition is underestimating the observed wind speed, while at Humboldt, there is overestimation in the model simulated wind speed. The findings from this study will potentially inform how to improve the modeling of wind resources off the coast of Northern California.
- Preprint
(1375 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(142 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 06 Aug 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-108', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Jul 2025
reply
This paper uses roughly 1-year of surface-based doppler lidar wind observations collected at two locations off the west coast of California (Morro Bay and Humboldt Bay) to evaluate the 3-hourly wind speed forecasts from the High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) numerical weather prediction model at several different heights from 40 to 240 m above the sea surface. They have demonstrated that overall, the HRRR’s performance matches the observations pretty well, with better agreement at Morro Bay vs Humboldt Bay, but that there are conditions where the model has significant wind speed errors.
Generally speaking, this paper reads very well. The figures are clean, the writing is clear, the results are largely well supported. I have listed a number of comments / suggestions below that I’d like the authors to consider and address before the paper could be accepted for publication.
Major comments:
Line 102: what is the accuracy and uncertainty of the GOES derived cloud top heights? Is there any seasonal dependency to these values?
Line 102: how are multi-layer cloud systems handled? Certainly there are cases where there is an upper level cirrus cloud that obscures the lower atmosphere?
Line 111 regarding your “minor discrepancies” comment: could this be a definition and/or sensitivity issue? For example, the GOES can only identify a cloud layer if the optical depth is above some threshold (which might depend on other atmospheric conditions), whereas the model might define a cloud if there are any hydrometeors in a volume. How was this handled? Was an instrument simulator applied to the HRRR’s output to try to mimic the GOES observations? (I suspect not, but you should at least be clear that this is an issue that could impact these analyses).
Line 134: One of the limitations of this study is that the liquid water path (LWP) cannot be compared between the GOES and model easily. My sense is that the model has too little LWP in its cloud, and thus in the daytime there is too little absorption of shortwave radiation, and thus too little diabatic heating in the cloud, which is why the cloud did not deepen. Your suggestion that it could be an issue with longwave radiative cooling is also possible, but again, this connects to errors in getting the diurnal evolution of the LWP in the cloud correct. So please expand this discussion a bit more.
Line 230: You are hypothesizing, here and later in the paper, that the model is not capturing stability properly and that could be the source of the bias. However, error in the sea surface temperature (SST), which is a boundary condition for the model, is another possibility. And it is possible that there are different errors in SST in Morro vs Humboldt Bays, especially in clear skies? That would affect the stability profile, which would then feed back into the turbulence and wind profiles. I believe the buoys have SST observations on them, and it would be a pretty straight-forward analysis to determine if SST biases are correlated with the wind biases. This might result in your need to update the statement at line 350.
Line 253: you state “similarity-based wind speed profile model”. The way this is worded suggests that the HRRR is using this approach. Similarly, in line 348, you give the same impression. The HRRR uses Monin-Obukhov theory in the surface layer; however, above the surface layer the HRRR uses an eddy diffusivity mass flux approach. See papers by Olson et al (BAMS 2019) and NOAA Tech Memo (https://doi.org/10.25923/n9wm-be49).
Figure 8 and the discussion starting at line 299: There are both resolved clouds (i.e., where the entire model grid cell is cloudy) and subgrid-scale clouds (i.e., where there is partial cloudiness in a grid cell). Unfortunately, the HRRR does not save the liquid water content operationally to an output file. Thus, this figure can only show the resolved cloud liquid clouds. It is possible that there is significant subgrid-scale cloud liquid between the “gaps” shown in Fig 8a and discussed at line 305, but we just don’t know for sure. You can get the LWP from the HRRR from the HRRR data archive on the AWS cloud server; the LWP is the vertical integral of both the resolved and subgrid-scale liquid water content profiles.
Minor comments:
Line 13: “multiple instruments”
Line 14: there are many types of lidar. Please say “including Doppler lidar”
Line 54: …resource assessments over the United States. (the HRRR’s domain)
Line 80: Isn’t GOES-17 the only satellite that is relevant for this paper?
Line 130: “in both locations” --> “in either location”
Line 131: I believe you have this reversed, as the GOES shows higher values in the daytime in Fig 2
Figure 3: please use the same y-axis range for all panels within the figure, as it would make it much easier to compare the different panels
Figure 4: same comment
Line 173: “overestimates wind shear” – this is not supported by Table 2, which shows the opposite
Line 214: “model consistently underestimates” – I disagree. Fig 5 top panel shows that the HRRR is essentially unbiased for wind speeds less than 10 m/s at Morro Bay
Figure 6: why didn’t you use the same style of plot as in Figure 5? It would make the paper more consistent and easier to read
Line 261: “decoupled during the day” – is this always true (i.e., for every cloudy day in your analysis)? I would be surprised if this was true
Line 275: the differences in the correlations between the two locations are important. Modify the end of this sentence to indicate the mean values of the correlation coefficient to help strengthen this point
Figure 7: the blue minus black lines in panes c and d do NOT equal the results shown in panels e and f. Please recompute and update the figure
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-108-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
82 | 12 | 20 | 114 | 11 | 7 | 11 |
- HTML: 82
- PDF: 12
- XML: 20
- Total: 114
- Supplement: 11
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1