1

Comparing initial large-scale fields from two HWRF runs with GFS analysis

--Two HWRF configurations

❶ H14C : GSI is used on Domain 1

❷ T14C: GSI is not used Domain 1

--GFS analysis 0.5X0.5 grib2 data are used

2

domains D01(27km)

ghost_d02(9km)

ghost_d03 (3km)

T14C Using GFS analysis

20°x20° 4 nodes 11 min 10°x10° 8 nodes 12 min

Conventional data, satellite radiance data, satellite wind, GPS RO, TDR data on GFS-HWRF blended coordinate (75

vertical levels)Turn on non-linear QC for

conventional data

Conventional data and TDR dataTurn on non-linear QC for

conventional data

H14C

80°x80° 3 nodes 18 min

N/A

15°x15° 10 nodes 24 min

Conventional data, satellite radiance data, satellite wind, GPS RO on

HWRF coordinate (61 vertical levels)Conventional data and TDR data

From Mingjing Tong

H14C vs T14C

3

Procedure

1. Get data of both HWRF runs from hpss for all cycles in EPAC and ATL in Aug of 2012 and 2013. Total 447 cycles.

2. Use “copygb” to map HWRF domain 1 to the same grid of GFS data (0.5X0.5), hr_grid="255 0 720 361 90000 000000 136 -90000 -500 500 500 0"

3. Calculate bias ( mean differences (HWRF – GFS), RMS difference for a given point. SPFH not available in HWRF but available in GFS. Calculated both for consistent comparison.

4

Distribution of the number of available data points

# of Cycles in Aug 2012: 296 = 77E + 219L# of Cycles in Aug 2013: 151 = 108E + 43LTotal: 447

5

HWRF analysis vs GFS analysis

HGT (850mb, 500mb) TMP (850mb, 500mb) RH (850mb, 500mb) SPFH (850mb, 500mb) Wind speed (850mb, 500mb) U (850mb, 500mb) V (850mb, 500mb)

6

H14C – GFS T14C – GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

7

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

500mb

8

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

9

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

500mb

10

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

11

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

500mb

12

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

13

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

500mb

14

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

15

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

500mb

16

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

17

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

500mb

18

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

19

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

500mb

20

Why wind speed close, but wind components different ?

- Select one cycle to take a closer look

21

TMP

RH

HGT

T14C minus GFS analysis

Storm 04L 20132013080118 cycle 850mb Scalars

22

Wind speed

U V

Wind

Large differences appear on the left part of domain.

23

HWRF GFS analysis

WRFOUT netcdf

Implication:POST different or one has error

24

HWRF F72 vs GFS analysis

HGT (850mb) TMP RH SPFH Wind speed U V

25

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

26

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

27

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

28

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

29

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

30

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

31

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

32

HWRF F72 vs GFS F72

HGT (850mb) TMP RH SPFH Wind Speed U V

33

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

34

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

35

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

36

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

37

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

38

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

39

H14C - GFS T14C - GFS

BIAS

RMS

850mb

40

Summary1. HWRF analysis vs GFS analysis T14C (without GSI) is better than H14C (with GSI) in terms of scalar fields (HGT, TMP, RH, SPFH). U/V differences are large for both. POST is very likely the error source.

2. HWRF F72 vs GFS analysis Largest difference is temperature over land. Both colder/wetter than GFS analysis. Spatial patterns of other differences somewhat correlate with TMP. Difference between T14C and H14C after 72hr integration not obvious, with T14C slightly better.

3. HWRF F72 vs GFS F72 Very similar, except temperature over land. Seem that spatial patterns of other variables ~ tmp. Better LSM will make comparison better.

41

42

43

04L_2013080118 f00

TMP

HGT

RH

TMP

H14C minus GFS analysis850mbH14C

44

U V

Speed