Abstract
The authors evaluate the performance of current regional models in an intercomparison project for a case of explosive secondary marine cyclogenesis occurring during the Canadian Atlantic Storms Project and the Genesis of Atlantic Lows Experiment of 1986. Several systematic errors are found that have been identified in the refereed literature in prior years. There is a high (low) sea level pressure bias and a cold (warm) tropospheric temperature error in the oceanic (continental) regions. Though individual model participants produce central pressures of the secondary cyclone close to the observed during the final stages of its life cycle, systematically weak systems are simulated during the critical early stages of the cyclogenesis. Additionally, the simulations produce an excessively weak (strong) continental anticyclone (cyclone); implications of these errors are discussed in terms of the secondary cyclogenesis. Little relationship between strong performance in predicting the mass field and skill in predicting a measurable amount of precipitation is found. The bias scores in the precipitation study indicate a tendency for all models to overforecast precipitation. Results for the measurable threshold (0.2 mm) indicate the largest gain in precipitation scores results from increasing the horizontal resolution from 100 to 50 km, with a negligible benefit occurring as a consequence of increasing the resolution from 50 to 25 km. The importance of a horizontal resolution increase from 100 to 50 km is also generally shown for the errors in the mass field. However, little improvement in the prediction of the cyclogenesis is found by increasing the horizontal resolution from 50 to 25 km.
