Numerical weather prediction (NWP) models have been increasing in skill and their capability to simulate weather systems and provide valuable information at convective scales has improved in recent years. Much effort has been put into developing NWP models across the globe. Representation of physical processes is one of the critical issues in NWP, and it differs from one model to another. We investigated the performance of three regional NWP models used by the South African Weather Service over southern Africa, to identify the model that produces the best deterministic forecasts for the study domain. The three models – Unified Model (UM), Consortium for Small-scale Modelling (COSMO) and Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) – were run at a horizontal grid spacing of about 4.4 km. Model forecasts for precipitation, 2-m temperature, and wind speed were verified against different observations. Snow was evaluated against reported snow records. Both the temporal and spatial verification of the model forecasts showed that the three models are comparable, with slight variations. Temperature and wind speed forecasts were similar for the three different models. Accumulated precipitation was mostly similar, except where WRF captured small rainfall amounts from a coastal low, while it over-estimated rainfall over the ocean. The UM showed a bubble-like shape towards the tropics, while COSMO cut-off part of the rainfall band that extended from the tropics to the sub-tropics. The COSMO and WRF models simulated a larger spatial coverage of precipitation than UM and snow-report records.
Warnings of severe weather with a lead time longer that two hours require the use of skillful numerical weather prediction (NWP) models. In this study, we test the performance of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Conformal Cubic Atmospheric Model (CCAM) in simulating six high-impact weather events, with a focus on rainfall predictions in South Africa. The selected events are tropical cyclone Dineo (16 February 2017), the Cape storm (7 June 2017), the 2017 Kwa-Zulu Natal (KZN) floods (10 October 2017), the 2019 KZN floods (22 April 2019), the 2019 KZN tornadoes (12 November 2019) and the 2020 Johannesburg floods (5 October 2020). Three configurations of CCAM were compared: a 9 km grid length (MN9km) over southern Africa nudged within the Global Forecast System (GFS) simulations, and a 3 km grid length over South Africa (MN3km) nudged within the 9 km CCAM simulations. The last configuration is CCAM running with a grid length of 3 km over South Africa, which is nudged within the GFS (SN3km). The GFS is available with a grid length of 0.25°, and therefore, the configurations allow us to test if there is benefit in the intermediate nudging at 9 km as well as the effects of resolution on rainfall simulations. The South African Weather Service (SAWS) station rainfall dataset is used for verification purposes. All three configurations of CCAM are generally able to capture the spatial pattern of rainfall associated with each of the events. However, the maximum rainfall associated with two of the heaviest rainfall events is underestimated by CCAM with more than 100 mm. CCAM simulations also have some shortcomings with capturing the location of heavy rainfall inland and along the northeast coast of the country. Similar shortcomings were found with other NWP models used in southern Africa for operational forecasting purposes by previous studies. CCAM generally simulates a larger rainfall area than observed, resulting in more stations reporting rainfall. Regarding the different configurations, they are more similar to one another than observations, however, with some suggestion that MN3km outperforms other configurations, in particular with capturing the most extreme events. The performance of CCAM in the convective scales is encouraging, and further studies will be conducted to identify areas of possible improvement.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.