Abstract

Herein, a summary of the authors' experiences with 36-h real-time explicit (4 km) convective forecasts with the Advanced Research Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF-ARW) during the 2003 - 05 spring and summer seasons is presented. These forecasts are compared to guidance obtained from th... Show moreHerein, a summary of the authors' experiences with 36-h real-time explicit (4 km) convective forecasts with the Advanced Research Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF-ARW) during the 2003 - 05 spring and summer seasons is presented. These forecasts are compared to guidance obtained from the 12-km operational Eta Model, which employed convective parameterization (e.g., Betts - Miller - Janjić). The results suggest significant value added for the high-resolution forecasts in representing the convective system mode (e.g., for squall lines, bow echoes, mesoscale convective vortices) as well as in representing the diurnal convective cycle. However, no improvement could be documented in the overall guidance as to the timing and location of significant convective outbreaks. Perhaps the most notable result is the overall strong correspondence between the Eta and WRF-ARW guidance, for both good and bad forecasts, suggesting the overriding influence of larger scales of forcing on convective development in the 24 - 36-h time frame. Sensitivities to PBL, land surface, microphysics, and resolution failed to account for the more significant forecast errors (e.g., completely missing or erroneous convective systems), suggesting that further research is needed to document the source of such errors at these time scales. A systematic bias is also noted with the Yonsei University (YSU) PBL scheme, emphasizing the continuing need to refine and improve physics packages for application to these forecast problems. Show less