An Analysis of the Differences Between Two Seasonal Saudi Arabian Dust Storms Using WRF-Chem
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Nevada, Reno An Analysis of the Differences Between Two Seasonal Saudi Arabian Dust Storms Using WRF-Chem A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Atmospheric Science by Yazeed Alsubhi Dr. Eric M. Wilcox/Thesis Advisor May, 2016 THE GRADUATE SCHOOL We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by YAZEED ALSUBHI Entitled An Analysis of the Differences Between Two Seasonal Saudi Arabian Dust Storms Using WRF-Chem be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Eric M. Wilcox, Ph.D., Advisor Michael Kaplan, Ph.D., Committee Member Mae Gustin, Ph.D., Graduate School Representative David W. Zeh, Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School May, 2016 i ABSTRACT This research focused on understanding the difference atmospheric conditions between two major dust storms in Saudi Arabia. These two types of dust storms occur annually over Saudi Arabia with different seasons, sources, and atmospheric dynamics. We analyzed the Sharav case study in the spring season from 31 March 2015 and the Shamal case study in the early summer season from 09 to 10 June 2015 using the HYSPLIT (Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory) model to determine the dust source regions and the MERRA (Modern Era-Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications) data for the large-scale analyses. Dust particles are generated from the Sahara Desert in the Sharav case; however, these particles are generated from the Syrian and Iraqi Deserts in the Shamal case. The large-scale analyses show that the differences in the circulation over much of the troposphere between these two cases cause the different circulations at the surface that impact the evolution of the dust storms differently. The results showed that the Sharav dust event is primarily caused by extratropical dynamics, while the Shamal dust event is forced by more regional dynamics. The WRF-Chem (Weather Research and Forecasting/Chemistry) model was validated against the MERRA data and simulated these cases to estimate the TKE at low-levels for both the Sharav and Shamal case studies which caused high dust concentrations with a maximum magnitude of ≅ 250 and ≅ 1000 , respectively. The model calculated the dust emissions within the domain to show the simulated daily rates of dust emissions for both the Sharav ii and Shamal case studies: a maximum daily average of ≅ 2.5x10 and ≅ 9x10 , respectively. iii ACKNOWLODGMENTS First of all, I would like to thank my parents who have been a source of inspiration and encouragement to me for my entire life. A very special thanks goes to my wife, Alaa Alhazmi who has helped me and provided a lovely life and a quiet environment to study to achieve my goals. My gratitude goes to my brothers, including Sahlan Almuntashiri, and my sisters for their love, support, and everything they have done for me over the years. My deepest appreciation goes to my government for supporting me to pursue my education to achieve my Master’s degree in United States. Second of all, I would like to express my biggest appreciation for my thesis committee members, Dr. Eric Wilcox, Dr. Michael Kaplan, and Dr. Mae Gustin for the nice and friendly attitude which assisted me throughout my study and research. I am really grateful for their patience and guidance while teaching me the applicability of what I have learned from my course work that shaped my research. Their motivation, support and vast knowledge have motivated me throughout my graduate career to accomplish my Master degree. Lastly, I would like to thank professors, faculty, and my fellow graduate students at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) and the Desert Research Institute (DRI). I am especially grateful to Lan Gao, Marco Giordano, Robert David, and Chiranjivi Bhattarai for providing me valuable information, suggestions, and help over my graduate career. It iv has been my pleasure to work with you all, including those I have not named. My thesis would not have been possible without everyone’s contributions that I have mentioned. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................................................. i Acknowledgements ........................................................................iii Table of contents ............................................................................. v List of Tables ........................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ....................................................................................................... viii 1. Introduction ................................................................................ 1 2. Data and Methodology ................................................................ 7 2.1 NASA Dataset ............................................................................... 7 2.2 WRF-Chem Model ....................................................................... 8 3. Research Findings ..................................................................... 15 3.1 Observational Analyses ............................................................... 15 3.1.1 The Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) ................................. 15 3.1.2 The Large-Scale Structure of the Atmosphere ................ 18 3.1.2a The Sharav case ................................................... 20 vi 3.1.2b The Shamal case .................................................. 25 3.2 The Modeled Results ..................................................................... 29 3.2.1 The Large-Scale structure of the atmosphere for the Sharav case ....29 3.2.2 The Large-Scale structure of the atmosphere for the Shamal case ...32 3.2.3 The Meteorological conditions for both cases ................. 35 3.2.4 The Mesoscale boundary layer details ............................. 38 3.2.4a The Sharav case ................................................... 38 3.2.4b The Shamal case .................................................. 42 4. Discussion/Conclusion .............................................................. 47 5. References ................................................................................. 52 vii LIST OF TABLES Table2.1: The parameters of the model. viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Map to show the location of the area of interest. Figure 2.1: The domain configuration. Figure 3.1: HYSPLIT- derived 72 hours back-trajectories ending in one location over Northern Saudi Arabia 29° N and 43°E at two atmospheric heights (100 m and 1500 m) at 09:00 UTC for the Sharav case on 01 April 2015 and the Shamal case on 10 June. Figure 3.2: The AOD values at 550 nm from MODIS Deep Blue measured over time for (Left) the Sharav case and (Right) the Shamal case. Figure 3.3: The jet streaks location at the 300 hPa for the Sharav case. (in the top-left corner): 18:00 UTC 31 March 2015, (in the top-right corner): 21:00 UTC 31 March 2015, (in the bottom-left corner): 03:00 UTC 01 April 2015, and (in the bottom-right corner): 09:00 UTC 01 April 2015. Figure 3.4: The jet streaks location at the 300 hPa for the Shamal case. (in the top-left corner): 12:00 UTC 09 June 2015, (in the top-right corner): 21:00 UTC 09 June 2015, (in the bottom-left corner): 15:00 UTC 10 June 2015, and (in the bottom-right corner): 21:00 UTC 10 June 2015. Figure 3.5: The Geopotential Heights, wind speed, and direction at 500 hPa for the Sharav case. (in the top-left corner): at 18:00 UTC on 31 March 2015, (in the top-right corner): at 21:00 UTC on 31 March 2015, (in the bottom-left corner): at 03:00 UTC on 01 April 2015, and (in the bottom-right corner): at 09:00 UTC on 01 April 2015. Figure 3.6: Geopotential Heights at the 850 hPa for the Sharav case. (in the top-left corner): at 18:00 UTC on 31 March 2015, (in the top-right corner): at 21:00 UTC on 31 March 2015, (in the bottom-left corner): at 03:00 UTC on 01 April 2015, and (in the bottom-right corner): at 09:00 UTC on 01 April 2015. Figure 3.7: Mean sea level pressure (Pa) for the Sharav case. (in the top-left corner): at 18:00 UTC on 31 March 2015, (in the top-right corner): at 21:00 UTC on 31 March 2015, (in the bottom-left corner): at 03:00 UTC on 01 April 2015, and (in the bottom-right corner): at 09:00 UTC on 01 April 2015. Figure 3.8: The surface air temperature for the Sharav case. (in the top-left corner): at 18:00 UTC on 31 March 2015, (in the top-right corner): at 21:00 UTC on 31 March 2015, (in the bottom-left corner): at 03:00 UTC on 01 April 2015, and (in the bottom-right corner): at 09:00 UTC on 01 April 2015. ix Figure 3.9: Wind speed and direction at 10 m above the surface for the Sharav case. (in the top-left corner): at 18:00 UTC on 31 March 2015, (in the top-right corner): at 21:00 UTC on 31 March 2015, (in the bottom-left corner): at 03:00 UTC on 01 April 2015, and (in the bottom-right corner): at 09:00 UTC on 01 April 2015. Figure 3.10: Geopotential heights and wind direction at the 500 hPa for the Shamal case. (in the top-left corner): at 12:00 UTC on 09 June 2015, (in the top-right corner): at 21:00 UTC on 09 June 2015, (in the bottom-left corner): at 15:00 UTC on 10 June 2015, and (in the bottom-right corner): at 21:00 UTC on 10 June 2015. Figure 3.11: Geopotential heights and wind direction at 850 hPa for the Shamal case. (in the top-left corner): at 12:00 UTC on 09 June 2015, (in the top-right corner): at 21:00 UTC on 09 June 2015, (in the bottom-left corner): at 15:00 UTC on 10 June 2015, and (in the bottom-right corner): at 21:00 UTC on 10 June 2015. Figure 3.12: Mean sea level pressure for the Shamal case. (in the top-left corner): at 12:00 UTC on 09 June 2015, (in the top-right corner): at 21:00 UTC on 09 June 2015, (in the bottom-left corner): at 15:00 UTC on 10 June 2015, and (in the bottom-right corner): at 21:00 UTC on 10 June 2015. Figure 3.13: The surface air temperature for the Shamal case.