No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No 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 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.

The performance of daily convection forecasts from 13 May to 9 July 2003 using the Weather Research and Forecast (WRF) model is investigated. Although forecasts using 10-km grid spacing and parameterized convection are not lacking in prediction of convective rainfall, fully explicit forecasts with a 4-km grid spacing more often predict identifiable mesoscale convective systems (MCSs) that correspond to observed systems in time and space. Furthermore, the explicit forecasts more accurately predict the number of MCSs daily and type of organization (termed convective system mode). The explicit treatment of convection in NWP does not necessarily provide a better point specific-forecast, but rather a more accurate depiction of the physics of convective systems.

Based on the analysis of idealized two-and three-dimensional cloud model simulations, Rotunno et al. (hereafter RKW) and Weisman et al. (hereafter WKR) put forth a theory that squall-line strength and longevity was most sensitive to the strength of the component of low-level (0-3 km AGL) ambient vertical wind shear perpendicular to squall-line orientation. An ''optimal'' state was proposed by RKW, based on the relative strength of the circulation associated with the storm-generated cold pool and the circulation associated with the ambient shear, whereby the deepest leading edge lifting and most effective convective retriggering occurred when these circulations were in near balance. Since this work, subsequent studies have brought into question the basic validity of the proposed optimal state, based on concerns as to the appropriate distribution of shear relative to the cold pool for optimal lifting, as well as the relevance of such concepts to fully complex squall lines, especially considering the potential role of deeper-layer shears in promoting system strength and longevity. In the following, the basic interpretations of the RKW theory are reconfirmed and clarified through both the analysis of a simplified two-dimensional vorticity-streamfunction model that allows for a more direct interpretation of the role of the shear in controlling the circulation around the cold pool, and through an analysis of an extensive set of 3D squall-line simulations, run at higher resolution and covering a larger range of environmental shear conditions than presented by WKR.