Transcript
Page 1: Overall Statistics RMSE WRF-UA:  159 W m -2 WRF-UCSD:  171 W m -2 STDERR ‘Bias-corrected RMSE’

  RMSE Ratio to NAM STDERR Ratio to NAM

Date WRF-UA WRF WRF-UA WRF

8/10/2011 0.90 1.34 0.82 1.09

8/11/2011 0.92 0.61 0.92 0.498/12/2011 0.82 0.59 0.87 0.638/13/2011 0.36 0.51 0.34 0.538/14/2011 0.40 0.54 0.37 0.57

8/15/2011 0.70 0.79 0.66 0.76

Overall Statistics

RMSE- WRF-UA:  159 W m-2

- WRF-UCSD:  171 W m-

2  

STDERR- ‘Bias-corrected RMSE’- WRF-UA:  165 W m-2

  - WRF-UCSD:  164 W m-

2

Ratios compared to NAM- WRF-UA more 

accurate for 4/6 days

Forecast horizon- WRF-UCSD is more 

accurate for the first 6-7 hours of simulation time

Page 2: Overall Statistics RMSE WRF-UA:  159 W m -2 WRF-UCSD:  171 W m -2 STDERR ‘Bias-corrected RMSE’

8/10/2011- WRF-UCSD performed 

much worse than WRF-UA- Not enough cloud 

cover (afternoon)- Scale of clouds

- WRF-UA cloud scales are much smaller, despite WRF-UA having slightly coarser resolution (1.8 km vs. 1.3 km)

WRF-UA WRF-UCSD

1500 UTC

1900 UTC

2200 UTC

Page 3: Overall Statistics RMSE WRF-UA:  159 W m -2 WRF-UCSD:  171 W m -2 STDERR ‘Bias-corrected RMSE’

1700 UTC

2000 UTC

2200 UTC

WRF-UA WRF-UCSD8/12/2011- Largest improvement 

over WRF-UA- Cloud field burnoff

- Timing captured by WRF-UCSD

- Too many afternoon clouds in WRF-UA

- WRF-UA has two distinct types of clouds from the model

Clouds generated by PBL scheme? Shallow convection?


Top Related