| description abstract | The verification of a gridded forecast field, for example, one produced by numerical weather prediction (NWP) models, cannot be performed on a gridpoint-by-gridpoint basis; that type of approach would ignore the spatial structures present in both forecast and observation fields, leading to misinformative or noninformative verification results. A variety of methods have been proposed to acknowledge the spatial structure of the fields. Here, a method is examined that compares the two fields in terms of their variograms. Two types of variograms are examined: one examines correlation on different spatial scales and is a measure of texture; the other type of variogram is additionally sensitive to the size and location of objects in a field and can assess size and location errors. Using these variograms, the forecasts of three NWP model formulations are compared with observations/analysis, on a dataset consisting of 30 days in spring 2005. It is found that within statistical uncertainty the three formulations are comparable with one another in terms of forecasting the spatial structure of observed reflectivity fields. None, however, produce the observed structure across all scales, and all tend to overforecast the spatial extent and also forecast a smoother precipitation (reflectivity) field. A finer comparison suggests that the University of Oklahoma 2-km resolution Advanced Research Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF-ARW) model and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 4-km resolution WRF-ARW slightly outperform the 4.5-km WRF-Nonhydrostatic Mesoscale Model (NMM), developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NOAA/NCEP), in terms of producing forecasts whose spatial structures are closer to that of the observed field. | |
