English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The	 goal	 for	 this	 study	 was	 to	 examine	 the	 performance	 of	 quantitative precipitation	 forecasting	 (QPF)	 obtained	 from	 a	 high	 resolution	 convection-­‐allowing model	 and	 two	 coarser	 resolution	 operational	 weather	 prediction	 models	 to	 better understand	 any	 QPF	 improvements	 in	 the	 convection-­‐allowing	 runs.	 The	 ARW-­‐WRF model	 was	 run	 over	 the	 period	 from	 March	 through	 November	 2013	 with	 4	 km	 grid spacing	 to	 better	 understand	 the	 limits	 of	 predictability	 of	 short-­‐term	 (12	 h)	 QPF that	 might	 be	 used	 in	 hydrology	 models.	 WRF	 runs	 were	 performed	 using	 NAM and GFS output	 as	 the	 first	 guess	 fields	 in	 the	 3-­‐dimensional	 variational	 data assimilation	 system.	 Radar	 data	 were	 assimilated	 in	 WRF	 runs.	 Several	 verification methods	 were	 used	 to	 compare	 the	 QPF	 from	 the	 high-­‐resolution	 runs	 with	 coarser operational	 GFS	 and	 NAM	 QPF.	 Three	 traditional	 grid-­‐to-­‐grid	 verification	 methods, as	 well	 as	 two	 spatial	 techniques,	 neighborhood	 and	 object-­‐based,	 were	 used	 to verify	 QPF	 for	 1h,	 3h,	 6h	 and	 12h	 precipitation	 accumulation	 intervals	 and	 two	 grid configurations. In	 general,	 skill	 increased	 more	 as	 accumulation	 interval	 increased	 than	 for spatial	 scale	 increasing.	 At	 the	 same	 neighborhood	 scale,	 the	 grid	 spacing	 on	 which the	 verifications	 were	 done	 had	 less	 impact	 on	 the	 high	 resolution	 WRF	 model	 than the	 coarser	 models.	 NAM	 had	 the	 worst	 performance	 not	 only	 for	 model	 skill	 but also	 for	 spatial	 features	 due	 to	 the	 existence	 of	 large	 dry	 bias	 and	 location	 errors. Even	 for	 some	 severe	 floods	 with	 large	 rain	 coverage,	 NAM	 still	 underpredicted	 the magnitude	 of	 the	 total	 rain	 volume.	 Moreover,	 the	 finer	 resolution	 of	 NAM	 did	 not offer	 any	 advantages	 in	 predicting	 small-­‐scale	 storms	 compared	 to	 the	 coarser	 GFS

A comparison of QPF from WRF simulations with operational NAM and GFS output using multiple verification methods