Search for: All records

With varying tangential winds and combinations of stratiform and convective clouds, tropical cyclones (TCs) can be difficult to accurately portray when mosaicking data from ground-based radars. This study utilizes the Dual-frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR) from the Global Precipitation Measurement Mission (GPM) satellite to evaluate reflectivity obtained using four sampling methods of Weather Surveillance Radar 1988-Doppler data, including ground radars (GRs) in the GPM ground validation network and three mosaics, specifically the Multi-Radar/Multi-Sensor System plus two we created by retaining the maximum value in each grid cell (MAX) and using a distance-weighted function (DW). We analyzed Hurricane Laura (2020), with a strong gradient in tangential winds, and Tropical Storm Isaias (2020), where more stratiform precipitation was present. Differences between DPR and GR reflectivity were larger compared to previous studies that did not focus on TCs. Retaining the maximum value produced higher values than other sampling methods, and these values were closest to DPR. However, some MAX values were too high when DPR time offsets were greater than 120 s. The MAX method produces a more consistent match to DPR than the other mosaics when reflectivity is <35 dBZ. However, even MAX values are 3–4 dBZ lower than DPR in higher-reflectivity regions where gradients are stronger and features change quickly. The DW and MRMS mosaics produced values that were similar to one another but lower than DPR and MAX values. 

Abstract Tropical cyclone (TC) precipitation poses serious hazards including freshwater flooding. High-resolution hurricane models predict the location and intensity of TC rainfall, which can influence local evacuation and preparedness policies. This study evaluates 0–72-h precipitation forecasts from two experimental models, the Hurricane Analysis and Forecast System (HAFS) model and the basin-scale Hurricane Weather Research and Forecasting (HWRF-B) Model, for 2020 North Atlantic landfalling TCs. We use an object-based method that quantifies the shape and size of the forecast and observed precipitation. Precipitation objects are then compared for light, moderate, and heavy precipitation using spatial metrics (e.g., area, perimeter, elongation). Results show that both models forecast precipitation that is too connected, too close to the TC center, and too enclosed around the TC center. Collectively, these spatial biases suggest that the model forecasts are too intense even though there is a negative intensity bias for both models, indicating there may be an inconsistency between the precipitation configuration and the maximum sustained winds in the model forecasts. The HAFS model struggles with forecasting stratiform versus convective precipitation and with the representation of lighter (stratiform) precipitation during the first 6 h after initialization. No such spinup issues are seen in the HWRF-B forecasts, which instead exhibit systematic biases at all lead times and systematic issues across all rain-rate thresholds. Future work will investigate spinup issues in the HAFS model forecast and how the microphysics parameterization affects the representation of precipitation in both models.