During the 2007 NOAA Hazardous Weather Testbed Spring Experiment, the Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms (CAPS) at the University of Oklahoma produced a daily 10-member 4-km horizontal resolution ensemble forecast covering approximately three-fourths of the continental United States. Each member used the Advanced Research version of the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF-ARW) model core, which was initialized at 2100 UTC, ran for 33 h, and resolved convection explicitly. Different initial condition (IC), lateral boundary condition (LBC), and physics perturbations were introduced in 4 of the 10 ensemble members, while the remaining 6 members used identical ICs and LBCs, differing only in terms of microphysics (MP) and planetary boundary layer (PBL) parameterizations. This study focuses on precipitation forecasts from the ensemble.The ensemble forecasts reveal WRF-ARW sensitivity to MP and PBL schemes. For example, over the 7-week experiment, the Mellor-Yamada-Janjić PBL and Ferrier MP parameterizations were associated with relatively high precipitation totals, while members configured with the Thompson MP or Yonsei University PBL scheme produced comparatively less precipitation. Additionally, different approaches for generating probabilistic ensemble guidance are explored. Specifically, a ''neighborhood'' approach is described and shown to considerably enhance the skill of probabilistic forecasts for precipitation when combined with a traditional technique of producing ensemble probability fields.

2An experiment is designed to evaluate and compare precipitation forecasts from a 5-member, 4-km grid-spacing (ENS4) and a 15-member, 20-km grid-spacing (ENS20) Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model ensemble, which cover a similar domain over the central United States.The ensemble forecasts are initialized at 2100 UTC on 23 different dates and cover forecast lead times up to 33 hours. Previous work has demonstrated that simulations using convection-allowing resolution (CAR; dx ~ 4-km) have a better representation of the spatial and temporal statistical properties of convective precipitation than coarser models using convective parameterizations. In addition, higher resolution should lead to greater ensemble spread as smaller scales of motion are resolved. Thus, CAR ensembles should provide more accurate and reliable probabilistic forecasts than parameterized-convection resolution (PCR) ensembles.Computation of various precipitation skill metrics for probabilistic and deterministic forecasts reveals that ENS4 generally provides more accurate precipitation forecasts than ENS20, with the differences tending to be statistically significant for precipitation thresholds above 0.25 inches at forecast lead times of 9 to 21 hours (0600 -1800 UTC) for all accumulation intervals analyzed (1-, 3-, and 6-hr). In addition, an analysis of rank histograms and statistical consistency reveals that faster error growth in ENS4 eventually leads to more reliable precipitation forecasts in ENS4 than in ENS20. For the cases examined, these results imply that the skill gained by increasing to CAR outweighs the skill lost by decreasing the ensemble size. Thus, when computational capabilities become available, it will be highly desirable to increase the ensemble resolution from PCR to CAR, even if the size of the ensemble has to be reduced.

This study evaluates forecasts of thermodynamic variables from five convection-allowing configurations of the Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) with the Advanced Research core (WRF-ARW). The forecasts vary only in their planetary boundary layer (PBL) scheme, including three “local” schemes [Mellor–Yamada–Janjić (MYJ), quasi-normal scale elimination (QNSE), and Mellor–Yamada–Nakanishi–Niino (MYNN)] and two schemes that include “nonlocal” mixing [the asymmetric cloud model version 2 (ACM2) and the Yonei University (YSU) scheme]. The forecasts are compared to springtime radiosonde observations upstream from deep convection to gain a better understanding of the thermodynamic characteristics of these PBL schemes in this regime. The morning PBLs are all too cool and dry despite having little bias in PBL depth (except for YSU). In the evening, the local schemes produce shallower PBLs that are often too shallow and too moist compared to nonlocal schemes. However, MYNN is nearly unbiased in PBL depth, moisture, and potential temperature, which is comparable to the background North American Mesoscale model (NAM) forecasts. This result gives confidence in the use of the MYNN scheme in convection-allowing configurations of WRF-ARW to alleviate the typical cool, moist bias of the MYJ scheme in convective boundary layers upstream from convection. The morning cool and dry biases lead to an underprediction of mixed-layer CAPE (MLCAPE) and an overprediction of mixed-layer convective inhibition (MLCIN) at that time in all schemes. MLCAPE and MLCIN forecasts improve in the evening, with MYJ, QNSE, and MYNN having small mean errors, but ACM2 and YSU having a somewhat low bias. Strong observed capping inversions tend to be associated with an underprediction of MLCIN in the evening, as the model profiles are too smooth. MLCAPE tends to be overpredicted (underpredicted) by MYJ and QNSE (MYNN, ACM2, and YSU) when the observed MLCAPE is relatively small (large).

No abstract

During the 2007 NOAA Hazardous Weather Testbed (HWT) Spring Experiment, the Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms (CAPS) at the University of Oklahoma produced convection-allowing forecasts from a single deterministic 2-km model and a 10-member 4-km-resolution ensemble. In this study, the 2-km deterministic output was compared with forecasts from the 4-km ensemble control member. Other than the difference in horizontal resolution, the two sets of forecasts featured identical Advanced Research Weather Research and Forecasting model (ARW-WRF) configurations, including vertical resolution, forecast domain, initial and lateral boundary conditions, and physical parameterizations. Therefore, forecast disparities were attributed solely to differences in horizontal grid spacing. This study is a follow-up to similar work that was based on results from the 2005 Spring Experiment. Unlike the 2005 experiment, however, model configurations were more rigorously controlled in the present study, providing a more robust dataset and a cleaner isolation of the dependence on horizontal resolution. Additionally, in this study, the 2- and 4-km outputs were compared with 12-km forecasts from the North American Mesoscale (NAM) model. Model forecasts were analyzed using objective verification of mean hourly precipitation and visual comparison of individual events, primarily during the 21- to 33-h forecast period to examine the utility of the models as next-day guidance. On average, both the 2- and 4-km model forecasts showed substantial improvement over the 12-km NAM. However, although the 2-km forecasts produced more-detailed structures on the smallest resolvable scales, the patterns of convective initiation, evolution, and organization were remarkably similar to the 4-km output. Moreover, on average, metrics such as equitable threat score, frequency bias, and fractions skill score revealed no statistical improvement of the 2-km forecasts compared to the 4-km forecasts. These results, based on the 2007 dataset, corroborate previous findings, suggesting that decreasing horizontal grid spacing from 4 to 2 km provides little added value as next-day guidance for severe convective storm and heavy rain forecasters in the United States.