1 / 17

Impacts of Land Effects and Improvements in Modeling Landfall Using HWRF

Impacts of Land Effects and Improvements in Modeling Landfall Using HWRF A Joint Hurricane Testbed (JHT) Program. Robert E. Tuleya, Yihua Wu, VijayTallapragada, Young Kwon, Zhan Zhang, Qingfu Liu, J. O’Connor and Bill Lapenta.

alaina
Download Presentation

Impacts of Land Effects and Improvements in Modeling Landfall Using HWRF

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impacts of Land Effects and Improvements in Modeling Landfall Using HWRF A Joint Hurricane Testbed (JHT) Program Robert E. Tuleya, Yihua Wu, VijayTallapragada, Young Kwon, Zhan Zhang, Qingfu Liu,J. O’Connor and Bill Lapenta 64rth Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference Savannah, GA March 2010

  2. JHT project task areas • Improve HWRF intensity forecasts • Upgrade land model and landfall prediction Transition to NOAH LSM • Trouble shoot and diagnose HWRF problems Analysis tools

  3. HWRF Predicted Tracksof Katrina Obs

  4. Forecasted Stream Flow (m3 s-1) 48h 48h 48h 72h 72h 72h NAM NLDAS HWRF Stream flow is higher in HWRF than in NLDAS and NAM, especially in Southeast of the domain

  5. Fay Hanna HLSM improves track errors over both HWRF(prod) and control !

  6. Hanna & Fay combined (42)

  7. HWRF control HLSM HLSM reduced problem of outliers in control model

  8. Two cases of Fay HLSM improvement HLSM improvement All forecasts bad!! Effects mean stats!!

  9. Operation models of Gustav at landfall

  10. Compare HWRF with inland decay model(Kaplan and DeMaria 1995, 2001 & 2006) in this case HWRF model decay has more rapid realistic. Not always the case!!!

  11. Summary & Future Works • HLSM reduces track errors for significant number of cases • To initialize HWRF with realistic initial conditions of soil moisture from NAM and NLDAS, rather than GFS. • Make refinements to HLSM system • To run more hurricane cases to test both HWRF and the stream flow routing scheme. • To objectively verify landfall decay and rainfall • To explore use of inland flooding models (e.g. from NWS Office of Hydrology or USGS)

  12. Additional analysis tools… • Forecast maximum intensity histogram • does model forecast match observational distribution?? • how does one model compare with another ? • utilizesmodified version of NHC verification package… thanks to Tim Marchok • HPLOT diagnostic utility refined by VijayTallapragada • grads based utility to compare multiple models • Capable of calculating derived quantities such as shear and MPI

  13. Histograms of 10m maximum wind 2008 Invest cases both models produce too many intense storms in 2008

  14. Histogram of 10m maximum wind 2009(a year of weak systems) Both model both models over-predict weak cases including Erika

  15. HWRF retains erroneous deep structure at 48h

  16. Operational HWRF GFS Analysis HWRF fails to simulate increased shear in the environment

More Related