1.3 Verification and Comparison of Storm and Storm-Environment Fields in the HRRR, RRFS, and NSSL MPAS Models

Monday, 29 January 2024: 9:00 AM
315 (The Baltimore Convention Center)
Corey K. Potvin, NSSL, Norman, OK; and L. Reames, A. J. Clark, D. Dowell, M. G. Duda, T. A. Jones, K. H. Knopfmeier, E. R. Mansell, W. Skamarock, Y. Wang, L. J. Wicker, and N. Yussouf

NSSL is exploring the suitability of the NCAR Model Prediction Across Scales - Atmosphere (MPAS-A; hereafter, simply “MPAS”) as the next-generation dynamical core in the NSSL Warn-on-Forecast System (WoFS). To assess strengths and weaknesses of MPAS relative to the existing WoFS dynamical core – the Advanced Research version of the Weather Research and Forecasting model (ARW) – and the UFS-based Finite-Volume Cubed-Sphere model (FV3), we are comparing forecast output among five deterministic models: the ARW-based High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR); EMC’s deterministic, CONUS-domain prototype of the FV3-based Rapid Refresh Forecast System (RRFS) that is tentatively scheduled to replace the HRRR and several other mesoscale model systems in 2024; and three regional MPAS models developed and run by NSSL. The three MPAS models differ only in their initializations and microphysics schemes: the MPAS-HT-NSSL is initialized from the HRRR and uses the Thompson scheme; the MPAS-RT-NSSL is initialized from the RRFS and uses the Thompson scheme; and the MPAS-HN-NSSL is initialized from the HRRR and uses the NSSL two-moment scheme. Comparing the MPAS-HN-NSSL and MPAS-HT-NSSL will allow us to test our hypothesis that the NSSL two-moment microphysics produces better thunderstorm forecasts in the MPAS, as it does in the ARW-based WoFS. Comparing the MPAS-RT-NSSL and RRFS, and the MPAS-HT-NSSL and HRRR, will illuminate the systematic impacts of the different dynamical cores given the similarity of the physics packages used in the models.

The project team is using a variety of methods to compare forecast performance and systematic differences among the five models. In this presentation, we use probability-matched composite means to visualize systematic differences in storms and near-storm environments, then compare errors in surface variables and sounding-derived parameters among the models using radiosonde and Automated Surface Observing Systems observations for verification.

- Indicates paper has been withdrawn from meeting
- Indicates an Award Winner