WRF Version Testing
 
WRF Version Test Description
- Code
- Domain
- Model
- Initialization
- Cases
- Verification
Codes Employed
The components of the end-to-end forecast system used include the most recent versions of the following system components:
                               • WRF Preprocessing System (WPS)
                               • WRF-ARW model
                               • Unified Post Processor (UPP)
                               • Model Evaluation Tools (MET) *Includes PB2NC bug fix
                               • NCAR Command Language (NCL) for graphics generation
			       • Statistical programming language, R, to compute confidence 
                       intervals
                     
Domain Configuration
    • Near-North American domain with 15-km grid spacing
 Click thumbnail for larger image.
Click thumbnail for larger image.
		         • Coarse domain: 656 x 464 gridpoints, for a total of 304,384 horizontal gridpoints 
                         • 36 vertical levels (37 sigma entries); model top at 50 hPa
 
                         • Lambert-Conformal map projection 
Sample Namelists
    • namelist.wps
                         • namelist.input (v3.4)
                         • namelist.input (v3.4.1)
                         • namelist.input (v3.5)
                         • namelist.input (v3.5.1)
                         • namelist.input (v3.6)
               
AFWA Reference Configuration
| Microphysics: | WRF Single-Moment 5 Simple Ice Scheme | 
| Radiation (LW/SW): | RRTM/Dudhia | 
| Surface Layer: | Monin-Obukhov Similarity Theory | 
| Land Surface: | Noah | 
| PBL: | Yonsei University Scheme | 
| Convection: | Kain-Fritsch Scheme | 
• Sample namelist.input
Other run-time settings
    • Long timestep = 90 s; Acoustic step = 4
 
                         • Calls to the boundary layer and microphysics parameterization
                       were made every time step 
 
                         • Calls to the cumulus parameterization were made every 5 
                       minutes
                         • Calls to radiation were made every 30 minutes
The end-to-end system for this test did not include a data assimilation component.
Initial and Boundary Conditions
    • Initial conditions (ICs) and Lateral Boundary Conditions
                        (LBCs): 0.5 x 0.5 degree Global Forecast System (GFS) model
                         • SST Initialization: Fleet Numerical Meteorology and
                        Oceanography Center (FNMOC) daily, real-time sea surface
                        temperature (SST) product
		 
Preprocessing Component
The time-invariant component of the lower boundary conditions (topography, soil and vegetation type etc.), using United States Geological Survey (USGS) input data, was generated through the geogrid program of WPS.
Cases Run
• Forecast Dates: Summer:1 July 2011 - 30 September 2011 
                                                   Winter: 1 January 2012 - 31 March 2012
                     • Initializations: Every 36 hours, including both 00 and 12 UTC
                     • Forecast Length: 48 hours; output files generated every 3 hours
 
   
| 00 UTC Initializations | 
| July 2011: 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31 | 
| August 2011: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30 | 
| September 2011: 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29 | 
| January 2012: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30 | 
| February 2012: 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29 | 
| March 2012: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30 | 
| 12 UTC Initializations | 
| July 2011: 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29 | 
| August 2011: 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31 | 
| September 2011: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30 | 
| January 2012: 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31 | 
| February 2012: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27 | 
| March 2012: 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31 | 
The tables below list the forecast initializations that failed to complete the end-to-end process due to the reasons described in the table. All incomplete forecasts were due to missing or bad input data sets, not model crashes.
Missing Forecasts:| Affected Case | Missing Data | Reason | 
| 2011071712 | WRF Output | Missing SST Input Data | 
| 2011080112 | WRF Output | Missing SST Input Data | 
| 2011082400 | WRF Output | Missing SST Input Data | 
| 2012011012 | WRF Output | Missing GFS input data | 
| 2012011612 | WRF Output | Missing GFS input data | 
| 2012012212 | WRF Output | Missing GFS input data | 
Missing Verification:
| Affected Case | Missing Data | Reason | 
| 2011072500 | Missing 3-h QPF verification for 18  21-h Missing 24-h QPF verification for 36-h | Missing ST2 analysis | 
Verification
The Model Evaluation Tools (MET) package, comprised of:
                         • grid-to-point comparisons - utilized for surface and upper air
                        model data
                         • grid-to-grid comparisons - utilized for QPF
was used to generate objective verification statistics, including:
                         • Bias-corrected Root Mean Square Error (BCRMSE) and Mean
                        Error (Bias) for:
                             • Surface: Temperature (2 m), Dew Point Temperature (2 m)
                            and Winds (10 m)
                             • Upper Air: Temperature, Dew Point Temperature and Winds
                         • Gilbert Skill Score (GSS) and Frequency Bias (FBias) for:
                             • 3-hr and 24-hr Precipiation Accumulation intervals
                     
Each type of verification metric is accompanied by confidence intervals (CIs), at the 99% level, computed using a parametric method for the surface and upper air variables and a boostrapping method for precipitation.
Both configurations were run for the same cases allowing for a pair-wise difference methodology to be applied, as appropriate. The CIs on the pair-wise differences between statistics for the two configurations objectively determines whether the differences are statistically significant (SS).
To establish practical significance (PS) in order to examine SS pair-wise differences that are potentially more meaningful, the data was censored to only look at differences that were greater than the operational measurement uncertainty requirements as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The following criteria were applied to determine PS pair-wise differences between the configurations and versions for select variables: i) temperature and dew point temperature differences greater than 0.1K and ii) wind speed differences greater than 0.5 ms-1.
Area-averaged verification results were computed for the full and CONUS domains, East and West domains, and 14 sub-domains.
