Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for :
- Author or Editor: Melinda Marquis x
- Weather and Forecasting x
- Refine by Access: All Content x
Abstract
During the summer of 2004 a network of 11 wind profiling radars (WPRs) was deployed in New England as part of the New England Air Quality Study (NEAQS). Observations from this dataset are used to determine their impact on numerical weather prediction (NWP) model skill at simulating coastal and offshore winds through data-denial experiments. This study is a part of the Position of Offshore Wind Energy Resources (POWER) experiment, a Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored project that uses National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) models for two 1-week periods to measure the impact of the assimilation of observations from 11 inland WPRs. Model simulations with and without assimilation of the WPR data are compared at the locations of the inland WPRs, as well as against observations from an additional WPR and a high-resolution Doppler lidar (HRDL) located on board the Research Vessel Ronald H. Brown (RHB), which cruised the Gulf of Maine during the NEAQS experiment. Model evaluation in the lowest 2 km above the ground shows a positive impact of the WPR data assimilation from the initialization time through the next five to six forecast hours at the WPR locations for 12 of 15 days analyzed, when offshore winds prevailed. A smaller positive impact at the RHB ship track was also confirmed. For the remaining three days, during which time there was a cyclone event with strong onshore wind flow, the assimilation of additional observations had a negative impact on model skill. Explanations for the negative impact are offered.
Abstract
During the summer of 2004 a network of 11 wind profiling radars (WPRs) was deployed in New England as part of the New England Air Quality Study (NEAQS). Observations from this dataset are used to determine their impact on numerical weather prediction (NWP) model skill at simulating coastal and offshore winds through data-denial experiments. This study is a part of the Position of Offshore Wind Energy Resources (POWER) experiment, a Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored project that uses National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) models for two 1-week periods to measure the impact of the assimilation of observations from 11 inland WPRs. Model simulations with and without assimilation of the WPR data are compared at the locations of the inland WPRs, as well as against observations from an additional WPR and a high-resolution Doppler lidar (HRDL) located on board the Research Vessel Ronald H. Brown (RHB), which cruised the Gulf of Maine during the NEAQS experiment. Model evaluation in the lowest 2 km above the ground shows a positive impact of the WPR data assimilation from the initialization time through the next five to six forecast hours at the WPR locations for 12 of 15 days analyzed, when offshore winds prevailed. A smaller positive impact at the RHB ship track was also confirmed. For the remaining three days, during which time there was a cyclone event with strong onshore wind flow, the assimilation of additional observations had a negative impact on model skill. Explanations for the negative impact are offered.
Abstract
Improved forecasts of atmospheric river (AR) events, which provide up to half the annual precipitation in California, may reduce impacts to water supply, lives, and property. We evaluate quantitative precipitation forecasts (QPF) from the High-Resolution Rapid Refresh model version 3 (HRRRv3) and version 4 (HRRRv4) for five AR events that occurred in February–March 2019 and compare them to quantitative precipitation estimates (QPE) from Stage IV and Mesonet products. Both HRRR versions forecast spatial patterns of precipitation reasonably well, but are drier than QPE products in the Bay Area and wetter in the Sierra Nevada range. The HRRR dry bias in the Bay Area may be related to biases in the model temperature profile, while integrated water vapor (IWV), wind speed, and wind direction compare reasonably well. In the Sierra Nevada range, QPE and QPF agree well at temperatures above freezing. Below freezing, the discrepancies are due in part to errors in the QPE products, which are known to underestimate frozen precipitation in mountainous terrain. HRRR frozen QPF accuracy is difficult to quantify, but the model does have wind speed and wind direction biases near the Sierra Nevada range. HRRRv4 is overall more accurate than HRRRv3, likely due to data assimilation improvements, and possibly physics improvements. Applying a neighborhood maximum method impacted performance metrics, but did not alter general conclusions, suggesting closest gridbox evaluations may be adequate for these types of events. Improvements to QPF in the Bay Area and QPE/QPF in the Sierra Nevada range would be particularly useful to provide better understanding of AR events.
Abstract
Improved forecasts of atmospheric river (AR) events, which provide up to half the annual precipitation in California, may reduce impacts to water supply, lives, and property. We evaluate quantitative precipitation forecasts (QPF) from the High-Resolution Rapid Refresh model version 3 (HRRRv3) and version 4 (HRRRv4) for five AR events that occurred in February–March 2019 and compare them to quantitative precipitation estimates (QPE) from Stage IV and Mesonet products. Both HRRR versions forecast spatial patterns of precipitation reasonably well, but are drier than QPE products in the Bay Area and wetter in the Sierra Nevada range. The HRRR dry bias in the Bay Area may be related to biases in the model temperature profile, while integrated water vapor (IWV), wind speed, and wind direction compare reasonably well. In the Sierra Nevada range, QPE and QPF agree well at temperatures above freezing. Below freezing, the discrepancies are due in part to errors in the QPE products, which are known to underestimate frozen precipitation in mountainous terrain. HRRR frozen QPF accuracy is difficult to quantify, but the model does have wind speed and wind direction biases near the Sierra Nevada range. HRRRv4 is overall more accurate than HRRRv3, likely due to data assimilation improvements, and possibly physics improvements. Applying a neighborhood maximum method impacted performance metrics, but did not alter general conclusions, suggesting closest gridbox evaluations may be adequate for these types of events. Improvements to QPF in the Bay Area and QPE/QPF in the Sierra Nevada range would be particularly useful to provide better understanding of AR events.
