Comparing initial large-scale fields from two HWRF runs with GFS analysis --Two HWRF configurations ❶ H14C : GSI is used on Domain 1 ❷ T14C: GSI is not used Domain 1 --GFS analysis 0.5X0.5 grib2 data are used 1

domains D01 (27km) ghost_d02 (9km) ghost_d03 (3km) T14C Using GFS analysis 20°x20°4 nodes11 min10°x10°8 nodes12 min Conventional data, satellite radiance data, satellite wind, GPS RO, TDR data on GFS-HWRF blended coordinate (75 vertical levels) Turn on non-linear QC for conventional data Conventional data and TDR data Turn on non-linear QC for conventional data H14C 80°x80°3 nodes18 min N/A 15°x15°10 nodes24 min Conventional data, satellite radiance data, satellite wind, GPS RO on HWRF coordinate (61 vertical levels) Conventional data and TDR data From Mingjing Tong H14C vs T14C 2

Procedure 1.Get data of both HWRF runs from hpss for all cycles in EPAC and ATL in Aug of 2012 and Total 447 cycles. 2. Use “copygb” to map HWRF domain 1 to the same grid of GFS data (0.5X0.5), hr_grid=" " 3. Calculate bias ( mean differences (HWRF – GFS), RMS difference for a given point. SPFH not available in HWRF but available in GFS. Calculated both for consistent comparison. 3

Distribution of the number of available data points # of Cycles in Aug 2012: 296 = 77E + 219L # of Cycles in Aug 2013: 151 = 108E + 43L Total: 447 4

HWRF analysis vs GFS analysis 5  HGT (850mb, 500mb)  TMP (850mb, 500mb)  RH (850mb, 500mb)  SPFH (850mb, 500mb)  Wind speed (850mb, 500mb)  U (850mb, 500mb)  V (850mb, 500mb)

H14C – GFST14C – GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 6

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 500mb 7

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 8

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 500mb 9

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 10

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 500mb 11

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 12

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 500mb 13

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 14

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 500mb 15

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 16

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 500mb 17

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 18

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 500mb 19

20 Why wind speed close, but wind components different ? - Select one cycle to take a closer look

21 TMP RH HGT T14C minus GFS analysis Storm 04L cycle 850mb Scalars

22 Wind speed U V Wind Large differences appear on the left part of domain.

23 HWRF GFS analysis WRFOUT netcdf Implication: POST different or one has error

HWRF F72 vs GFS analysis 24  HGT (850mb)  TMP  RH  SPFH  Wind speed  U  V

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 25

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 26

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 27

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 28

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 29

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 30

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 31

HWRF F72 vs GFS F72 32  HGT (850mb)  TMP  RH  SPFH  Wind Speed  U  V

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 33

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 34

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 35

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 36

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 37

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 38

H14C - GFST14C - GFS BIAS RMS 850mb 39

40 Summary 1. HWRF analysis vs GFS analysis T14C (without GSI) is better than H14C (with GSI) in terms of scalar fields (HGT, TMP, RH, SPFH). U/V differences are large for both. POST is very likely the error source. 2. HWRF F72 vs GFS analysis Largest difference is temperature over land. Both colder/wetter than GFS analysis. Spatial patterns of other differences somewhat correlate with TMP. Difference between T14C and H14C after 72hr integration not obvious, with T14C slightly better. 3. HWRF F72 vs GFS F72 Very similar, except temperature over land. Seem that spatial patterns of other variables ~ tmp. Better LSM will make comparison better.

41

42

04L_ f00 TMP HGT RH TMP H14C minus GFS analysis 850mb H14C 43

UV Speed 44