May2009 M.Taylor J.Freedman K.Waight M.

Brower

USINGSIMULATEDWINDDATAFROM AMESOSCALEMODELINMCP

Page|2

UsingSimulatedWindDatafromaMesoscaleModelinMCP

ABSTRACT
Sincefieldmeasurementcampaignsforproposedwindprojectstypicallylastnomorethanafewyears, the observed meteorological data collected on site often deviate from the longterm climatology. To reduce the uncertainty associated with climate variability, a statistical relationship is typically establishedbetweenamonitoringsiteandoneormorereferencestationsusingatechniqueknownas MeasureCorrelatePredict(MCP). ProperuseofMCPrequiresreferencestationswithlongdatarecordscollectedatthesamelocationand height, with the same equipment, and in relatively unchanging surroundings. Identifying reference stationsmeetingthesestringentcriteriaisbecomingincreasinglydifficult,especiallyconsideringthatthe NationalWeatherService(NWS)isreplacingcupanemometerswithicefreeultrasonicanemometersat itsAutomatedSurfaceObservingSystem(ASOS)stations. One approach that offers promise of mitigating these problems is to drive a mesoscale model with a consistent set of observational data. Though the concept is similar to reanalysis, the combination of highermodelresolutionandcareintheselectionofstationsusedinthesimulationsshouldimproveon thosedata.Towardsthisend,wehavecreatedwindTrends,amodeleddatasetcoveringNorthAmerica at 20km resolution from 1997 to the present, and have conducted a thorough evaluation of its suitabilityforMCPandotherapplications.Thisstudysummarizesourfindings.

INTRODUCTION
Predictingthefuturerequiresinsightintothepast.Untilrecently,mostresourceassessmentsforwind energyprojectshavereliedonstandardmeteorologicaltowerstoestablishhistoricalclimateconditions. But with intermittent changes in surroundings, locations, and equipment, the continuity and representativeness of these reference data is a growing concern. Other commonlyused reference sources include rawinsonde (instrumented balloon) and reanalysis data, but these sources also have potentially significant shortcomings as well. The relatively few rawinsonde stations often exhibit poor correlationswithwindprojectsites,whereasreanalysisdataarevulnerabletoinconsistenciescausedby changesintheobservationaldatausedtodrivethemodels. Oneapproachthatmayovercometheseproblemsistodriveamesoscalemodelwithaconsistentsetof observationaldata.We havecreatedsucha dataseries,knownaswindTrends.Thisreportdetailsour validationofwindTrendsagainstASOS,rawinsonde,NCEP/NCARGlobalReanalysis(NNGR)[1] andNorth American Regional Reanalysis (NARR)[2] with respect to its consistency over time and its viability as a longtermreferenceforwindresourceassessment.

BACKGROUNDANDMETHODS
InterannualVariabilityandMeasureCorrelatePredict(MCP)
Mostwindresourceassessmentprogramsspanroughlyonetotwoyears.Whenexaminingtheannual meanwindspeedsfromreferencesiteswithlongperiodsofrecord,wefindthattheyvaryconsiderably from yeartoyear. Figure 1 shows a time series of the annual mean wind speeds at the Chicago Midway(KMDW)AutomatedSurfaceObservingSystem(ASOS)[3]stationbetween1998and2007.The annualmeanspeedwaswithin1%ofthetenyearaverageinonlyfourofthetenyearsanddeviatedby asmuchas4.0%.Givensuchvariability,itisprudenttoadjustobserveddataatashorttermresource assessmentsitetolongtermconditions.

May2009

Page|3

UsingSimulatedWindDatafromaMesoscaleModelinMCP

5.0 4.8 4.6

WindSpeed(m/s)

4.4 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year
Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Mean Speed (m/s) 4.29 4.48 4.54 4.45 4.57 4.49 4.55 4.41 4.38 4.48 4.47 Deviation From Normal -4.0% 0.1% 1.5% -0.5% 2.3% 0.5% 1.7% -1.3% -2.0% 0.2%

AnnualMean OverallMean

Figure1.AnnualMeanWindSpeedsatChicagoMidwayASOSStation

The MCP method of estimating longterm wind speeds correlates shortterm data from a site with concurrent data from a longterm reference station (Figure 2). A regression or other relationship between the two stations is derived, and the longterm mean speed or speed distribution at the reference station is applied to estimate the longterm speed or speed distribution at the site. The accuracyofthelongtermprojectionsisdirectlytiedtotheconsistencyof thereference dataand the qualityofthecorrelationbetweenthetargetmastandreferencesite.Problemssuchasalimitedperiod of reference data, poor correlation with onsite measurements, and changing observational methods andplatformscancausesignificanterrorsinenergyproductionestimates.
9 8 7
WindSpeed(m/s)

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Jan98 Jan99 Jan00 Jan01 Jan02 Jan03 Jan04 Jan05 Jan06 Jan07 Jan08 Month MonitoringMast ReferenceSite

Figure2.ComparisonofTypicalMonitoringMastandReferenceSitePeriodsofRecord

CommonReferenceDataSources
SurfaceStations The most widely used source of reference data is surface weather stations. They offer several advantages.Surfacestationsarerelativelynumerousandcollectfrequent(usuallyhourly)observations.
May2009

Page|4

UsingSimulatedWindDatafromaMesoscaleModelinMCP

Additionally,insomecountries,suchastheUnitedStates,sitehistories,datacollectionprotocols,and equipment maintenance records are well documented. Unfortunately, weather stations are often locatedfarfromwindprojectsitesorindifferentwindregimes,andthereforecanexhibitunsatisfactory correlationswithonsitemeasurements.Thewindmonitoringheightsatsurfacereferencestationsare alsousuallylow(10mistheASOSandinternationalstandard);theresultisthatthemeasurementsare verysensitivetochangesinthesurroundings,suchastreegrowthorbuildingconstruction.Finally,as has been the case with the ASOS network, instrumentation and data collection protocols change occasionally,oftenintroducingshiftsintheobservedwindspeedsthatmayjeopardizethesitesviability asalongtermreference.OnesuchchangeoccurredintheUnitedStateswhentheASOSstandardwas implementedatweatherstationsstartingin the mid1990sandrenderedpriormeasurementsuseless for MCP. Very recently, ASOS cup anemometers were replaced with ultrasonic icefree wind (IFW) sensors. Test data indicate a small but measurable difference in wind speeds recorded by IFW, which addsuncertaintytotheMCPprocess.[4] RawinsondeStations Rawinsonde data are acquired using instrumented balloons to sample the vertical profile of the atmosphere.[5]Comparedtosurfacestations,thismeasurementtechniquehaschangedrelativelylittle in the past two or three decades, resulting in a long data record that is typically quite consistent and reliableaswellasforheightswellabovegroundfreeofimpactsfromchangingsurfaceconditions. However, rawinsonde stations are far less numerous than surface stations, and they generally collect soundingsonlyonceevery12hours.1Inaddition,thelowestusefulheightofmeasurement(definedby standard pressure levels) is often above the planetary boundary layer. For these reasons, rawinsonde dataoftendonotcorrelateaswellassurfaceweatherdatawithmeasurementstakenatwindproject sites. ReanalysisData The term reanalysis data refers to a gridded data base of weather observations that have been assimilated at a later time into a global or regional weather model. NNGR and NARR, two publicly availablereanalysisdatasets,arethefocusofourdiscussion;othersincludeaglobaldatasetdeveloped bytheEuropeanCentreforMediumRangeWeatherForecasts[6].Observationaldatasourcesassimilated into the reanalysis models include surface, rawinsonde, satellite and aircraft. The main advantage of reanalysisdataisthattheyprovideaconvenientsourceofweatherdataextendingbackseveraldecades (to 1948, in the case of NNGR). However, the quantity and sources of weather observations used to drivethereanalysismodelhavevariedgreatlyoverthepastseveraldecades,leadingtofalsetrendsand variationsinsomeregions.[7]Inaddition,duetothecoarsemodelresolution(210kmforNNGR),thereis oftenapoorcorrelationwithwindmonitoringsites.

windTrends:ControlledRegionalReanalysis
windTrends is a controlled regional reanalysis dataset developed by AWS Truewind. Though conceptuallysimilartoreanalysis,theprocessdiffersintwokeyways:thegridresolutionisfinerandthe sourceofobservationaldatarawinsondeonlyhasbeenkeptfixedthroughoutthesimulationperiod. These modifications should allow for a more consistent data set that correlates better with onsite observationsthanstandardreanalysisdata.
1 According to the NWS rawinsonde fact sheet posted at http://www.ua.nws.noaa.gov/factsheet.htm,

there are 69 operational rawinsonde stations in the conterminous United States. Observations are usuallycollectedtwicedaily.
May2009

Page|5

UsingSimulatedWindDatafromaMesoscaleModelinMCP

The windTrends data were produced from Mesoscale Atmospheric Simulation System (MASS)[8] model simulationsonagridcoveringtheconterminousUnitedStatesandsouthernCanadastartinginJanuary 1997. The simulations were made on a 60km outer grid and a 20km nested grid, with NNGR data supplying the initial and lateral boundary conditions. Rawinsonde data from the Integrated Global RawinsondeArchive(IGRA)werealsousedintheobjectiveanalysesoftheinitialfields.Foreachmonth, twoseriesofrunsweremade,beginningwithacoldstart12hoursbeforethefirstofthemonthand12 hoursbeforeeitherthe15thor16thofthemonth,followedbytwoweeksofsimulationswithrawinsonde observationsassimilatedat0000and1200UTC.Thissimulationstrategywasdesignedtominimizethe influenceoftheinitialconditionsfromNNGR.

Validation
TrendVerification The selection of validation stations for this part of the analysis began with a list of 371 highquality stations used by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies in their analysis of longterm surface temperature trends.[9] Stations outside the conterminous United States were eliminated. Next, the availability of surface data for each station was verified. Stations were retained if they had 95% availabilityforeachof10years(19972006),resultinginalistofabout185stations.Plottingthose stationsonamap,thereweresomeareaswithsparsestationcoverage:NewYork,Vermont,theUpper Peninsula of Michigan, coastal North and South Carolina, coastal Louisiana, and central and southern California.Fifteenstationsinthoseareaswithalmost95%coveragewereselectedandaddedtothelist, resulting in 198 stations, of which 30 were rawinsonde stations. Using these sites, we compared the longterm wind speed trends and anomalies from the NNGR, NARR, and windTrends with concurrent observeddataateachoftheselectedstationsonhourly,monthly,andannualtemporalperiods. MCPVerification Inearlierwork,Tayloretal.[10]developedamethodwherebytheaccuracyofMCPwastestedforwind resourceassessmentsiteshavingperiodsofrecordspanningatleastfouryears.Theonsite(target)data were divided into a sequence of shorter periods typical of what would be available for MCP. A regression with a reference data set was performed for each subperiod and the mean speed for the entireperiodwaspredicted.Theerrormarginoftheprocedurewasderivedfromthebiasesbetween thepredictedandactualmeanspeedsforallthesubperiods. Forthisassessment,weselectedtheentireASOSnetworkastargetsitesandrepeatedthesameMCP analysisusing,asreference,thenearestASOSsiteandnearestwindTrendsgridpointwiththestrongest correlations.TheASOSnetworkyielded629sitesthat,untiltheinstallationoftheIFWsensors,operated usingthesamewindmeasurementsystemforseveralyears.Wefocusedontheresultswitha12month subperiod. We also identified ten wind resource assessment sites that have high data recovery and fit the established criteria, and repeated the same analysis using direct observations (ASOS and rawinsonde) andmodeledwindTrendsandNNGRdataasreferences.Foranadditional12siteswithlessthanfour yearsofdata,wecomparedonlythecoefficientofdeterminationorsquareofthecorrelationcoefficient (r2)valuesoftheregressions.ForASOSreferencesitesthatwereconvertedtoIFWsensors,weuseda preliminarycorrectiontothedatadevelopedbyAWSTruewindfromsidebysidetestdataprovidedby theNWS.
May2009

Page|6

UsingSimulatedWindDatafromaMesoscaleModelinMCP

RESULTS
TrendVerification
Figure3containsatimeseriescomparingtheannualmeanwindspeedanomalies(deviationsfromthe average) for NNGR, NARR, and windTrends with the observed anomalies. windTrends and NNGR data both correlate well with the observations. However, the NNGR data exhibit a downward trend that deviates from windTrends and the observed data. The NARR data show a noticeable discontinuity startingin2002,whichmayberelatedtoachangeinproceduresforassimilatingrawinsondedata.
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2

WindSpeedAnomaly(m/s)

0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 ASOS windTrends NNGR NARR

Figure3.ComparisonofAnnualMeanWindSpeedAnomaliesfor198SurfaceBasedMonitoringStations

TimeseriesoftheannualmeanwindspeedsfromwindTrendsinterpolatedtoseveralmastlocationsand compared with nearby ASOS or rawinsonde data suggest good agreement. Two examples of these comparisonsarecontainedinFigure4.
12

10 windTrends10I windTrends50I Elkins,WV Dulles,VA Blacksburg,VA Pittsburgh,PA

WindSpeed(m/s)

WindSpeed(m/s)

2 windTrends10I windTrends50I Ellensburg,WA Yakima,WA

0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Figure4.AnnualMeanWindSpeedsfromwindTrendsandNearbyReferenceStations foranEasternRidgetop(left)andCentralWashington(right)

Figure 5 contains a time series comparing the monthly mean wind speed anomalies from NNGR and windTrends with the observed anomalies at the 198 surface and rawinsonde stations. windTrends correlates very well with the observed data; the NNGR anomalies also correlate well, but are systematicallylarger,likelybecausetheywerecalculatedat25mheightaboveground.Ofimportance is that a close examination of both datasets reveals periods in the NNGR dataset that deviate
May2009

Page|7

UsingSimulatedWindDatafromaMesoscaleModelinMCP

substantiallyfromtheobservedvalues.ThosediscrepanciesdonotappearinwindTrends,oraremuch smaller.
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Jan97 Jan98 Jan99 Jan00 Jan01 Jan02 Month Jan03 Jan04 Jan05 Jan06 ASOS NNGR

WindSpeedAnomaly(m/s) WindSpeedAnomaly(m/s)

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Jan97 Jan98 Jan99 Jan00 Jan01 Jan02 Month Jan03 Jan04 Jan05 Jan06 ASOS windTrends

Figure5.ComparisonofMonthlyMeanWindSpeedAnomaliesfor198SurfaceBasedMonitoringStations

MCPVerification
Forthe629ASOSsites,theASOStoASOSregressionshadastrongercorrelationinabout80%ofcases; theaverager2valuewas0.71betweenASOSsites,whileitwas0.65betweentheASOStargetsiteand the best windTrends grid point. Figure 6 shows the geographic distribution of the differences in r2 betweentheASOStoASOSandASOStowindTrendscorrelations.Greencontoursonthismapindicate thewindTrendsgridpointhasthesuperiorr2,whereasredindicatestheASOSstationdoes.windTrends generallydoesbetterinthecomplexterrainoftheAppalachian andRocky Mountains.Conversely,in coastal regions and the southeastern United States, ASOS data provide the stronger correlation. ThroughoutmuchoftheGreatPlains,thetwoareroughlyequivalent.

May2009

Page|8

UsingSimulatedWindDatafromaMesoscaleModelinMCP

ASOS-to-wT r2 > ASOS-to-ASOS r2 ASOS-to-ASOS r2 > ASOS-to-wT r2

MeanwT r2:0.65 MeanASOSr2:0.71

Higherr2 wT:122Sites MeanASOSr2:506Sites Equal:1Site

Figure6.GeographicDistributionofRelativeASOStoASOSandASOStowindTrendsCorrelation

In contrast to the ASOS target sites, the wind resource assessment sites generally have stronger correlationswiththewindTrendsdatathanwiththeASOSreferencedata.Figure7containsascatterplot ofther2valuesfor22targetsitesandtheircorrelationswithASOSandwindTrendsreferencedata.In16 cases,thewindTrendscorrelationishigher.Thispatternmayreflectthefactthatmostwindprojectsites are better exposed to synopticscale winds, which are captured well by the windTrends simulations, whereasASOSstationsareofteninshelteredlocations,suchasvalleys.
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 windTrendsrsquared 0.8
2

ASOSrsquared

Figure7.ScatterplotofMasttoASOSandMasttowindTrendsr valuesfor22Sites

As shown in Figure 8, the distributions of MCP standard errors for ASOS and windTrends are virtually identical.ForASOStowindTrendsregressions,themeanstandarderroris0.096m/s;forASOStoASOS regressions,itis0.095m/s.
May2009

Page|9

UsingSimulatedWindDatafromaMesoscaleModelinMCP

35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 StandardError(m/s) ASOStowindTrends ASOStoASOS LowerStdErr wT:315Sites ASOS:314Sites wTAvgDist:13.2km ASOSAvgDist:75.2km wTStdErr:0.096 ASOSStdErr:0.095

PercentofOccurrence

Figure8.FrequencyDistributionsofASOStoASOSandASOStowindTrendsStandardErrors

Forthetenwindresourceassessmentmastswithperiodsofrecordofatleastfouryears,windTrends performedslightlybetterthanASOSandsignificantlybetterthanNNGRforMCP.Therespectiveaverage r2 values were 0.75 (masttowindTrends), 0.72 (masttoASOS), and 0.55 (masttoNNGR), while the standarderrorswere0.12(windTrends),0.13(ASOS),and0.16(NNGR).Theresultsaresummarizedin Figure9.
0.40 0.35
StandardError(m/s)

0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 1

windTrends ASOS NNGR

Meanr2 windTrends:0.75 ASOS:0.72 NNGR: 0.55

5 6 7 MastNumber

10 Mean

Figure9.StandardErrorsofMCPAnalysesfor10MonitoringMastUsingwindTrends,ASOS,andNNGRDataasReferences

Inmostindividualcases,thewindTrendsstandarderrorsarecomparabletoorlowerthanthosederived using the ASOS or NNGR reference data. The only location where windTrends performs substantially worsethanASOSisatMast6,whichislocatedinaCaliforniamountainpasswherethewindclimateis highlylocalizedandthereforenotresolvedbythe20kmwindTrendssimulations.
May2009

Page|10

UsingSimulatedWindDatafromaMesoscaleModelinMCP

SUMMARYANDCONCLUSIONS
AWS Truewind developed windTrends in hopes of providing a consistent set of reference data for performingMCPstudiesthatarewellcorrelatedtowindprojectsitesintheconterminousUnitedStates andsouthernCanada.ThevalidationworkreportedhereshowsthatwindTrendsisgenerallysuperiorto globalreanalysis(NNGR)andcomparabletoASOSstationsforthispurpose. WhetherASOSorwindTrendsshouldbeusedinaparticularMCPanalysiscanbedecidedonacaseby case basis. Where the correlations are similar and there are no evident consistency problems in the ASOSdata,eitherdataset(orboth)canbeused.Whereoneexhibitsamuchstrongercorrelationthan theother,thatdatasetislikelytobethebetterchoice.Theconsistencyproblemswehaveobservedin bothNNGRanditsregionalcounterpart,NARR,suggestthattheyarenotsuitableinmostsituationsfor MCP.

ONGOINGANDFUTUREWORK
Validation work continues. One goal is to identify and assess additional wind resource assessment mastswithsufficientlylongperiodsofrecordtoprovideamoreextensivetestofwindTrendsinMCP. The present sample of 10 such masts is fairly small. Another goal is to gauge the impact of the IFW correctionontheaccuracyofMCPusingASOSstations. We are also working to improve the windTrends data set. Since the current 20km resolution is insufficient to resolve highly localized wind climates such as mountain passes, we are planning to increasethegridresolutionto5km.Thisshouldincreasethequalityofthecorrelationsanddecrease thestandarderrorsinthelongtermpredictions. ThewindTrendsapproachisalsobeingextendedtotherestofCanada,India,andothercountries.
References:
[1] Kistler,R.etal.,2001:TheNCEP/NCAR50YearReanalysis:MonthlyMeansCDROMandDocumentation.Bulletinofthe AmericanMeteorologicalSociety,82,No.2,247268 [2] Mesinger,F.etal.,2006:NorthAmericanRegionalReanalysis.BulletinoftheAmericanMeteorologicalSociety,87,No.3, 343360 [3] NOAA, 1998: ASOS users guide. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 61 pp. [Available online at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/asos] [4] Lewis, R. and J. Dover, 2004: Field and Operational Tests of a Sonic Anemometer for the Automated Surface Observing System,EighthSymposiumonIntegratedObservingandAssimilationSystemsforAtmosphere,Ocean,andLandSurface, AmericanMeteorological.Society,Seattle,WA. [5] ImkeDurre,RussellS.VoseandDavidB.Wuertz.2006:OverviewoftheIntegratedGlobalRadiosondeArchive.Journalof Climate:Vol.19,No.1,pp.5368.Brower,M.C.,2006:TheUseofReanalysisDataforClimateAdjustments.AWSTruewind ResearchNote#1. [6] Uppala,etal.,2006:TheERA40reanalysis.QuarterlyJournaloftheRoyalMeteorologicalSociety.,131,29613012. [7] Brower,M.C.,2006:TheUseofReanalysisDataforClimateAdjustments.AWSTruewindResearchNote#1. [8] Manobianco,J.,J.W.ZackandG.E.Taylor,1996:WorkstationbasedRealtimeMesoscaleModelingDesignedforWeather Support to Operations at the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Station. Bulletin of the American MeteorologicalSociety,77,No.4,653672 [9] Hansen,J.,R.Ruedy,J.Glascoe,andM.Sato,1999:GISSanalysisofsurfacetemperaturechange.JournalofGeophysical Research.104,3099731022. [10] Taylor,Mark,etal.,2004:AnAnalysisofWindResourceUncertaintyinEnergyProductionEstimates,Proceedingsofthe EuropeanWindEnergyConference.

May2009