Search for: All records

Abstract Operational forecast models are necessary for the prediction of weather events in real time. Verification of these models must be performed to assess model skills and areas in need of improvement, particularly with different types of weather events that may occur. Despite the devastating impacts that can be caused by tropical cyclones (TCs) that undergo extratropical transition (ET) and become post-tropical cyclones (PTCs), these storms have not been extensively studied in the context of short-term weather prediction. This study completes the first analysis of the Global Forecast System (GFS) and a preoperational version of the newly operational Hurricane Analysis and Forecast System (HAFS) models in forecasting the occurrence of ET and the rainfall associated with ET storms in the North Atlantic basin. GFS’s skill exceeds that of HAFS in forecasting the occurrence of ET, but HAFS tends to have lower track and rain-rate errors in the fully tropical phase of ET storms’ life cycles. Both models simulate rain rates that are often too high near the storm center and fail to capture the larger area of moderate rain rates that greatly contributes to total rainfall accumulation. The discrepancies in rain rates between the models and Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for GPM (IMERG) could be attributed to the models’ tendency to keep storms too intense and too compact with an overly strong warm core, even throughout the ET process. 

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.