An Objective Technique for Verifying Sea Breezes in High-Resolution Numerical Weather Prediction Models

An ongoing challenge in mesoscale numerical weather prediction (NWP) is to determine the ideal method for verifying the performance of high-resolution, detailed forecasts. Traditional objective techniques that evaluate NWP model performance based on point error statistics may not be positively correlated with the value of forecast information for certain applications of mesoscale NWP, and subjective evaluation techniques are often costly and time consuming. As a result, objective event-based verification methodologies are required in order to determine the added value of high-resolution NWP models. This paper presents a new objective technique to verify predictions of the sea-breeze phenomenon over eastcentral Florida by the Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS) NWP model. The contour error map (CEM) technique identifies sea-breeze transition times in objectively analyzed grids of observed and forecast wind, verifies the forecast sea-breeze transition times against the observed times, and computes the mean postsea-breeze wind direction and wind speed to compare the observed and forecast winds behind the sea-breeze front. The CEM technique improves upon traditional objective verification techniques and previously used subjective verification methodologies because it is automated, accounts for both spatial and temporal variations, correctly identifies and verifies the sea-breeze transition times, and provides verification contour maps and simple statistical parameters for easy interpretation. The CEM algorithm details are presented and validated against independent meteorological assessments of the sea-breeze transition times and results from a previously published subjective evaluation.

[1]  C. J. Tremback,et al.  A surface temperature and moisture parameterization for use in mesoscale numerical models , 1985 .

[2]  G. Mellor,et al.  Development of a turbulence closure model for geophysical fluid problems , 1982 .

[3]  G. Hillman,et al.  Real-time determination of IIR coefficients for cascaded Butterworth filters , 1989, International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing,.

[4]  John Manobianco,et al.  Evaluation of the 29-km Eta Model. Part II: Subjective Verification over Florida , 1999 .

[5]  C. K. Yuen,et al.  Theory and Application of Digital Signal Processing , 1978, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[6]  S. Lakshmivarahan,et al.  7B.3 DEVELOPMENT OF AN “EVENTS-ORIENTED” APPROACH TO FORECAST VERIFICATION , 2001 .

[7]  William R. Cotton,et al.  The Sensitivity of a Simulated Extratropical Mesoscale Convective System to Longwave Radiation and Ice-Phase Microphysics , 1988 .

[8]  Mark M. Wheeler,et al.  Verification of High-Resolution RAMS Forecasts over East-Central Florida during the 1999 and 2000 Summer Months , 2002 .

[9]  Huw C. Davies,et al.  Limitations of Some Common Lateral Boundary Schemes used in Regional NWP Models , 1983 .

[10]  Efi Foufoula-Georgiou,et al.  Scale issues in verification of precipitation forecasts , 2001 .

[11]  R. Pielke,et al.  A comprehensive meteorological modeling system—RAMS , 1992 .

[12]  S. Lakshmivarahan,et al.  8 . 3 VERIFICATION OF MESOSCALE FEATURES IN NWP MODELS , 2001 .

[13]  S. Barnes,et al.  A Technique for Maximizing Details in Numerical Weather Map Analysis , 1964 .

[14]  Jonathan Case,et al.  The Evaluation of the Regional Atmospheric Modeling System in the Eastern Range Dispersion Assessment System , 2000 .