Comparison of systematic errors in two forecast models -with similar dynamical frame-works
Main Article Content
Abstract
							FForecast errors exhibit the characteristics of approximations in  simulating dynamical and physical processes in models. The models are  very complex and hence it is not always possible to identify the  approximations responsible for any particular error pattern in  forecasts. A comparison between the models' forecast performances can be  valuable in isolating the causes of error patterns. Here a comparison  of forecast errors in the AFGL (Air Force Geophysics Laboratory) and  COLA (Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Interactions) models is made with  the expectation of identifying the causes of forecast errors. The two  models are based on identical approximations in simulating the dynamical  processes and only minor differences in parameterizations of the  physical processes. Nine ten-day forecasts are made to study the error  characteristics in the two models. The errors in the 500 mb geopotential  height are negative in tropics and positive in extratropics. The  temperatures at 850 mb are colder than observed in tropics and warmer  than observed in extratropics. At 150 mb the temperatures are warmer tan  observed in tropics and colder than observed in extratropics. These  qualitative error characteristics are not only common to these two  models, but also to the NMC (National Meteorological Center), GFDL  (Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory), and ECMWF (European Centre for  Medium-Range Weather Forecast) forecast models. The difference in the  error structure between the two models is the magnitude of the error in  the tropics. The tropical error in the AFGL model is larger than that in  the COLA model. Another difference is in the 850 mb relative humidity  field. In the AFGL model, relative humidity errors are negative largely  over the ocean and positive over land with minor exceptions. This error  structure differs from that of the COLA model which consists of mostly  positive errors everywhere with some small regions of negative errors.  The major differences in the physical parameterizations between the two  models are in the radiation interaction with deep convective clouds, the  manner in which the sea surface temperature (SST) is prescribed and the  vertical transport of heat and moisture by shallow convection. The  magnitude of tropical errors in the geopotential height at 500 mb and  temperature at 850 mb may be because the AFGL model does not include  deep convective cloud-radiation interactions. The 850 mb relative  humidity errors over oceans are probably due to the manner in which the  SST is prescribed and the lack of proper vertical transport of moisture  by the shallow convection parameterization.
						
					Downloads
			Download data is not yet available.
		
	Article Details
Once an article is accepted for publication, the author(s) agree that, from that date on, the owner of the copyright of their work(s) is Atmósfera.
Reproduction of the published articles (or sections thereof) for non-commercial purposes is permitted, as long as the source is provided and acknowledged.
Authors are free to upload their published manuscripts at any non-commercial open access repository.