May 20, 2010 Meeting Summary
Vijay Tallapragada presented some preliminary results from HWRF V3.2 R2O experiments. First Vijay presented statistics from control, or R1 (HWR1), runs. He noted that for HWR1, the code had corrections for radiation, land surface temperature, and momentum mixing, as well as bug fixes for the WPS binary. Overall, for the R1 tests, the goal was for HWR1 to match H050 results or improve on them. For the 2008-2009 Atlantic storms, Vijay noted a small loss in skill of track forecasts at 96 and 120h, almost the same value between HWR1 (in blue) and H050 (in orange) for x and y track bias, and almost identical values for H050 and HWR1 track standard deviation. Intensity error for the Atlantic storms showed improved skill for HWR1 with a decrease in positive bias compared to H050. For the 2008-2009 East Pacific, HWR1 showed a slight improvement in track error and track y bias as well as standard deviation. HWR1 also showed smaller intensity error values at 72h compared to H050 and reduced intensity bias for the EastPac storms. Next, Vijay split up the seasons and looked at the 2008 and 2009 Atlantic and East Pacific individually. He noted a large improvement in intensity skill for HWR1 compared to H050 for the Atlantic and East Pacific in both 2008 and 2009 with a slight loss in skill for the 2009 East Pacific at 96h and 120h. Vijay concluded by describing R2 experiments, which would use the H56C configuration with V3.2. R2 runs should be underway in the next few weeks.
Next Zhan Zhang presented some diagnostics from HWRF R1 experiments. Zhan noted these diagnostics were mainly for sanity check purposes. Zhan first showed track and intensity forecasts for Fay. He noted the similarity of HWR1 and H050 as well as the slight improvement shown with HWR1. Zhan then showed the wind speed plots for Hurricane Gustav at 48 and 96h. He noted that in older V3 runs, the HWRF had spurious vortices in the wind field, which had been diminished with the version of V3.2 used for HWR1 runs. Zhan then showed plots for Fay, first of surface latent heat. He noted that at 48h, the differences in HWR1 and H050 values were much larger than at 6h. The same was true for surface sensible heat. The sea level pressure and SST plot at 48h for Fay showed a larger cold wake for the HWR1 run. The plot for the temperature difference between the lowest post processed level and SST showed a 1 degree cooler value for HWR1 compared to H050. Finally Zhan noted the differences in the cross-section of the wind speed plots and how the storm structures were different. More work on the differences between H050 and HWR1 runs is ongoing.
Finally, Janna O'Connor presented a very brief overview of the new products from the HWRF for the 2010 hurricane season. She noted the inclusion of GOES simulated water vapor and infrared products as well as simulated radar reflectivity for both the parent and nest domains.