Dexterity of WRF and GFS models in contrast with vertical radiosonde profiles
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X87743Keywords:
Radiosonde, WRF, ModelAbstract
The study focused on evaluating the dexterity of numerical prediction models using radiosonde data, which consists of collecting information from the atmospheric profile, which is fundamental for the initialization of the models. For this analysis, two models, GFS and WRF, were compared with radiosonde observations. The observations used are from the radiosondes launched from the International Airport of Santarém/PA - Maestro Wilson Fonseca. Overall, both models underestimated air temperature measurements at low levels but aligned better at high altitudes. As for the zonal wind, the GFS overestimated at some levels, while the WRF had smaller discrepancies. The models face challenges in predicting air temperature, suggesting limitations in region-specific physics and boundary conditions. Both models had similar performance in the zonal wind forecast. The study highlights the importance of considering such discrepancies in weather forecasting and how these tools can be adjusted to improve their forecasts.
Downloads
References
AHRENS, C. D. Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate and the Environment. 13 ed. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2021.
NASH, J. Measurement of upper-air pressure, temperature and humidity. World Meteorological Organization, 2015. IOM Report-No 121. Disponível em: <https://library.wmo.int/index.php?lvl= notice_display&id=18528>. Acesso em: 14 ago 2023.
PARRA, R. Assessment of Land Surface Schemes from the WRF-Chem for Atmospheric Modeling in the Andean Region of Ecuador. Atmosphere, v. 14, n. 3, p. 1-24, mar 2023.
PRASAD, V. S.; JOHNY, C. J.; MALO, P.; SINGH, S. K.; RAJAGOPAL, E. N. Global retrospective analysis using NGFS for the period 2000-2011. Current Science, v. 112, n. 2, p. 370-377, jan. 2017.
RAJAGOPAL, E. N.; GUPTA, M. D.; MOHANDAS, S.; PRASAD, V. S.; GEORGE, J. P.; IYENGAR, G. R.; KUMAR, D. P. Implementation of T254L64 Global Forecast System at NCMRWF. NCMRWF Technical Report, pp. 1-42, 2007. Disponível em: <https://www.ncmrwf.gov.in/gfs_report_final-t264.pdf>. Acesso em: 13 ago 2023.
SKAMAROCK, W. C.; KLEMP, J. B.; DUDHIA, J.; GILL, D. O.; BARKER, D.; DUDA, M. G.; HUANG, X. Y.; WANG, W.; POWERS, J. G. A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Version 3. 2008. (No. NCAR/TN-475+STR). University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.5065/D68S4MVH
STENSRUD, D. J. Parameterization Schemes: Keys to Understanding Numerical Weather Prediction Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812590.
WARNER, T. T. Numerical weather and climate prediction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763243.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Ciência e Natura
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
