Abstract
Large variations in the accuracy of warm season MCS rainfall predictions are investigated by examining several well-forecasted and poorly forecasted cases from a sample of 20 events simulated using a 10 km grid spacing version of the Eta model. Two different convective schemes, the Betts–Miller–Janjic and Kain–Fritsch, have been used in the simulations to investigate in detail differences in simulated rainfall fields. The accuracy of the forecasts is evaluated using both subjective analysis and objective skill measures. The fact that subjective analysis does not necessarily agree with an objective analysis further argues for the development of new objective verification methods for quantitative precipitation forecasting. To gain some insight into possible causes of errors in the most poorly forecasted events, tests are performed where initialized relative humidity is adjusted to either encourage or discourage rainfall formation in specific regions.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
