Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

The Impact of Different WRF Model Physical Parameterizations and Their Interactions on Warm Season MCS Rainfall

Isidora Jankov Department of Geological and Atmospheric Science, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

Search for other papers by Isidora Jankov in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
William A. Gallus Jr. Department of Geological and Atmospheric Science, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

Search for other papers by William A. Gallus Jr. in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Moti Segal Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

Search for other papers by Moti Segal in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Brent Shaw Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado

Search for other papers by Brent Shaw in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
Steven E. Koch NOAA/Research Forecast System Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Steven E. Koch in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Dec 2005
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF888.1
Page(s):
1048–1060
Restricted access

Abstract

In recent years, a mixed-physics ensemble approach has been investigated as a method to better predict mesoscale convective system (MCS) rainfall. For both mixed-physics ensemble design and interpretation, knowledge of the general impact of various physical schemes and their interactions on warm season MCS rainfall forecasts would be useful. Adopting the newly emerging Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model for this purpose would further emphasize such benefits. To pursue this goal, a matrix of 18 WRF model configurations, created using different physical scheme combinations, was run with 12-km grid spacing for eight International H2O Project (IHOP) MCS cases. For each case, three different treatments of convection, three different microphysical schemes, and two different planetary boundary layer schemes were used. Sensitivity to physics changes was determined using the correspondence ratio and the squared correlation coefficient. The factor separation method was also used to quantify in detail the impacts of the variation of two different physical schemes and their interaction on the simulated rainfall.

Skill score measures averaged over all eight cases for all 18 configurations indicated that no one configuration was obviously best at all times and thresholds. The greatest variability in forecasts was found to come from changes in the choice of convective scheme, although notable impacts also occurred from changes in the microphysics and planetary boundary layer (PBL) schemes. Specifically, changes in convective treatment notably impacted the forecast of system average rain rate, while forecasts of total domain rain volume were influenced by choices of microphysics and convective treatment. The impact of interactions (synergy) of different physical schemes, although occasionally of comparable magnitude to the impacts from changing one scheme alone (compared to a control run), varied greatly among cases and over time, and was typically not statistically significant.

Corresponding author address: Isidora Jankov, Iowa State University, Agronomy Hall 3010, Ames, IA 50011. Email: ijankov@iastate.edu

Abstract

In recent years, a mixed-physics ensemble approach has been investigated as a method to better predict mesoscale convective system (MCS) rainfall. For both mixed-physics ensemble design and interpretation, knowledge of the general impact of various physical schemes and their interactions on warm season MCS rainfall forecasts would be useful. Adopting the newly emerging Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model for this purpose would further emphasize such benefits. To pursue this goal, a matrix of 18 WRF model configurations, created using different physical scheme combinations, was run with 12-km grid spacing for eight International H2O Project (IHOP) MCS cases. For each case, three different treatments of convection, three different microphysical schemes, and two different planetary boundary layer schemes were used. Sensitivity to physics changes was determined using the correspondence ratio and the squared correlation coefficient. The factor separation method was also used to quantify in detail the impacts of the variation of two different physical schemes and their interaction on the simulated rainfall.

Skill score measures averaged over all eight cases for all 18 configurations indicated that no one configuration was obviously best at all times and thresholds. The greatest variability in forecasts was found to come from changes in the choice of convective scheme, although notable impacts also occurred from changes in the microphysics and planetary boundary layer (PBL) schemes. Specifically, changes in convective treatment notably impacted the forecast of system average rain rate, while forecasts of total domain rain volume were influenced by choices of microphysics and convective treatment. The impact of interactions (synergy) of different physical schemes, although occasionally of comparable magnitude to the impacts from changing one scheme alone (compared to a control run), varied greatly among cases and over time, and was typically not statistically significant.

Corresponding author address: Isidora Jankov, Iowa State University, Agronomy Hall 3010, Ames, IA 50011. Email: ijankov@iastate.edu

Save
Cover Weather and Forecasting
Weather and Forecasting

  • Alhamed, A., Lakshmivarahan S. , and Stensrud D. J. , 2002: Cluster analysis of multimodel ensemble data from SAMEX. Mon. Wea. Rev., 130 , 226–256.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Baldwin, M. E., and Mitchell K. E. , 1997: The NCEP hourly multi-sensor U.S. precipitation analysis for operations and GCIP research. Preprints, 13th Conf. on Hydrology, Long Beach, CA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 54–55.

  • Bernardet, L. R., Nance L. , Chuang H-Y. , Loughe A. , and Koch S. E. , 2004: Verification statistics for the NCEP WRF pre-implementation test. Part 1: Deterministic verification of ensemble members. Preprints, Fifth Joint WRF/14th MM5 User’s Workshop, Boulder, CO, NCAR/Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Division, 229–232.

  • Betts, A. K., 1986: A new convective adjustment scheme. Part I: Observational and theoretical basis. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 112 , 677–692.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Betts, A. K., and Miller M. J. , 1986: A new convective adjustment scheme. Part II: Single column tests using GATE wave, BOMEX, ATEX and arctic air-mass data sets. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 112 , 693–709.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bright, D. R., and Mullen S. L. , 2002: The sensitivity of the numerical simulation of the southwest monsoon boundary layer to the choice of PBL turbulence scheme in MM5. Wea. Forecasting, 17 , 99–114.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Doswell C. A. III, , Brooks H. E. , and Maddox R. A. , 1996: Flash flood forecasting: An ingredients-based methodology. Wea. Forecasting, 11 , 560–581.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Du, J., Mullen S. L. , and Sanders F. , 1997: Short-range ensemble forecasting of quantitative rainfall. Mon. Wea. Rev., 125 , 2427–2459.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Du, J., and Coauthors, 2004: The NOAA/NWS/NCEP short-range ensemble forecast (SREF) system: Evaluation of an initial condition vs. multi-model physics ensemble approach. Preprints, 16th Conf. on Numerical Weather Prediction, Seattle, WA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., CD-ROM, 21.3.

  • Ferrier, B. S., Jin Y. , Lin Y. , Black T. , Rogers E. , and DiMego G. , 2002: Implementation of a new grid-scale cloud and rainfall scheme in the NCEP Eta Model. Preprints, 15th Conf. on Numerical Weather Prediction, San Antonio, TX, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 280–283.

  • Fritsch, J. M., and Carbone R. E. , 2004: Improving quantitative precipitation forecasts in the warm season. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 85 , 955–965.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Gallus W. A. Jr., , 1999: Eta simulations of three extreme rainfall events: Impact of resolution and choice of convective scheme. Wea. Forecasting, 14 , 405–426.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Gallus W. A. Jr., , and Segal M. , 2000: Sensitivity of forecast rainfall in a Texas convective system to soil moisture and convective scheme. Wea. Forecasting, 15 , 509–526.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Gallus W. A. Jr., , and Segal M. , 2001: Impact of improved initialization of mesoscale features on convective system rainfall in 10-km Eta simulations. Wea. Forecasting, 16 , 680–696.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Grimit, E. P., and Mass C. F. , 2002: Initial results of a mesoscale short-range ensemble forecasting system over the Pacific Northwest. Wea. Forecasting, 17 , 192–205.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hamill, T. M., 1999: Hypothesis test for evaluating numerical precipitation forecasts. Wea. Forecasting, 14 , 155–167.

  • Hamill, T. M., and Colucci S. J. , 1997: Verification of Eta–RSM short-range ensemble forecasts. Mon. Wea. Rev., 125 , 1312–1327.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hamill, T. M., and Colucci S. J. , 1998: Evaluation of Eta–RSM ensemble probabilistic rainfall forecasts. Mon. Wea. Rev., 126 , 711–724.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hong, S-Y., Juang H-M. H. , and Zhao Q. , 1998: Implementation of prognostic cloud scheme for a regional spectral model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 126 , 2621–2639.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Janjić, Z. I., 1994: The step-mountain Eta coordinate model: Further developments of the convection closure schemes. Mon. Wea. Rev., 122 , 927–945.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Jankov, I., and Gallus W. A. Jr., 2004: Contrast between good and bad forecasts of warm season MCS rainfall. J. Hydrol., 288 , 122–152.

  • Jian, G-J., Shieh S-L. , and McGinley J. A. , 2003: Precipitation simulation associated with Typhoon Sinlaku (2002) in Taiwan area using the LAPS diabatic initialization for MM5. Terr. Atmos. Oceanic Sci., 14 , 261–288.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kain, J. S., and Fritsch J. M. , 1993: The role of the convective “trigger function” in numerical prediction of mesoscale convective systems. Meteor. Atmos. Phys., 49 , 93–106.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lin, Y-L., Farley R. D. , and Orville H. D. , 1983: Bulk scheme of the snow field in a cloud model. J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 22 , 1065–1092.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Molteni, F., Buizza R. , Palmer T. N. , and Petroliagis T. , 1996: The ECMWF ensemble prediction system: Methodology and validation. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 122 , 73–119.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Murphy, J. M., 1993: What is a good forecast? An essay on the nature of goodness in weather forecasting. Wea. Forecasting, 8 , 281–293.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Nicholls, N., 2001: The insignificance of significance testing. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 82 , 981–986.

  • Schaefer, J. T., 1990: The critical success index as an indicator of warning skill. Wea. Forecasting, 5 , 570–575.

  • Stein, U., and Alpert P. , 1993: Factor separation in numerical simulations. J. Atmos. Sci., 50 , 2107–2115.

  • Stensrud, D. J., and Fritsch J. M. , 1994: Mesoscale convective systems in weakly forced large-scale environments. Part III: Numerical simulations and implications for operational forecasting. Mon. Wea. Rev., 122 , 2084–2104.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Stensrud, D. J., and Wandishin M. S. , 2000: The correspondence ratio in forecast evaluation. Wea. Forecasting, 15 , 593–602.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Stensrud, D. J., Brooks H. E. , Du J. , Tracton M. S. , and Rogers E. , 1999a: Using ensembles for short-range forecasting. Mon. Wea. Rev., 127 , 433–446.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Stensrud, D. J., Manikin G. S. , Rogers E. , and Mitchell K. E. , 1999b: Importance of cold pools to NCEP mesoscale Eta Model forecasts. Wea. Forecasting, 14 , 650–670.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Stensrud, D. J., Bao J-W. , and Warner T. T. , 2000: Using initial condition and model physics perturbations in short-range ensemble simulations of mesoscale convective systems. Mon. Wea. Rev., 128 , 2077–2107.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Tracton, M. S., and Kalnay E. , 1993: Operational ensemble prediction at the National Meteorological Center: Practical aspects. Wea. Forecasting, 8 , 379–398.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Troen, I., and Mahrt L. , 1986: A simple model of the atmospheric boundary layer: Sensitivity to surface evaporation. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 47 , 129–148.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wang, W., and Seaman N. L. , 1997: A comparison study of convective schemes in a mesoscale model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 125 , 252–278.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Weckwerth, T. M., and Coauthors, 2004: An overview of the International H2O Project (IHOP_2002) and some preliminary highlights. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 85 , 253–277.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wisse, J. S. P., and Vila-Guerau de Arellano J. , 2004: Analysis of the role of the planetary boundary layer schemes during a severe convective storm. Ann. Geophys., 22 , 1861–1874.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1525 507 40
PDF Downloads 962 213 15