The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Experiences with 0–36-h Explicit Convective Forecasts with the WRF-ARW Model
Open accessAbstract
Herein, a summary of the authors’ experiences with 36-h real-time explicit (4 km) convective forecasts with the Advanced Research Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF-ARW) during the 2003–05 spring and summer seasons is presented. These forecasts are compared to guidance obtained from the 12-km operational Eta Model, which employed convective parameterization (e.g., Betts–Miller–Janjić). The results suggest significant value added for the high-resolution forecasts in representing the convective system mode (e.g., for squall lines, bow echoes, mesoscale convective vortices) as well as in representing the diurnal convective cycle. However, no improvement could be documented in the overall guidance as to the timing and location of significant convective outbreaks. Perhaps the most notable result is the overall strong correspondence between the Eta and WRF-ARW guidance, for both good and bad forecasts, suggesting the overriding influence of larger scales of forcing on convective development in the 24–36-h time frame. Sensitivities to PBL, land surface, microphysics, and resolution failed to account for the more significant forecast errors (e.g., completely missing or erroneous convective systems), suggesting that further research is needed to document the source of such errors at these time scales. A systematic bias is also noted with the Yonsei University (YSU) PBL scheme, emphasizing the continuing need to refine and improve physics packages for application to these forecast problems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Version 2
Skamarock, W., Klemp, J., Dudhia, J., Gill, D., Barker, D., & Wang, W. (2005) · NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research · doi:10.5065/d6dz069t · Cited by 2,504
Self-citation
Cited by
A Revised Scheme for the WRF Surface Layer Formulation
Jiménez, P. A., Dudhia, J., González-Rouco, J. F., Navarro, J., Montávez, J. P., & García-Bustamante, E. (2012) · Monthly Weather Review · doi:10.1175/mwr-d-11-00056.1 · Cited by 1,915
Westra, S., Fowler, H. J., Evans, J. P., Alexander, L. V., Berg, P., Johnson, F., Kendon, E. J., Lenderink, G., & Roberts, N. M. (2014) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1002/2014rg000464 · Cited by 1,533
Prein, A. F., Langhans, W., Fosser, G., Ferrone, A., Ban, N., Goergen, K., Keller, M., Tölle, M., Gutjahr, O., Feser, F., et al. (2015) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1002/2014rg000475 · Cited by 1,445
Use of NWP for Nowcasting Convective Precipitation: Recent Progress and Challenges
Sun, J., Xue, M., Wilson, J. W., Zawadzki, I., Ballard, S. P., Onvlee-Hooimeyer, J., Joe, P., Barker, D. M., Li, P.-W., Golding, B., et al. (2014) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-d-11-00263.1 · Cited by 592
Kain, J. S., Weiss, S. J., Bright, D. R., Baldwin, M. E., Levit, J. J., Carbin, G. W., Schwartz, C. S., Weisman, M. L., Droegemeier, K. K., Weber, D. B., et al. (2008) · Weather and Forecasting · doi:10.1175/waf2007106.1 · Cited by 455
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Weisman, M. L., Davis, C., Wang, W., Manning, K. W., & Klemp, J. B.
- Venue
- Weather and Forecasting
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2008-06-01
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 407-437
- ISSN
- 0882-8156 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-0434
- OpenAlex
- W2070158856
- Cited by
- 479
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Experiences with 0–36-h Explicit Convective Forecasts with the WRF-ARW Model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/2007waf2007005.1
- The paper
- Weisman, M. L., Davis, C., Wang, W., Manning, K. W., & Klemp, J. B. (2008). Experiences with 0–36-h Explicit Convective Forecasts with the WRF-ARW Model. Weather and Forecasting. https://doi.org/10.1175/2007waf2007005.1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.