Model Configuration versus Driving Model: Influences on Next-Day Regional Convection-Allowing Model Forecasts during a Real-Time Experiment

As part of NOAA’s Hazardous Weather Testbed Spring Forecasting Experiment (SFE) in 2020, an international collaboration yielded a set of real-time convection-allowing model (CAM) forecasts over the contiguous United States in which the model configurations and initial/boundary conditions were varied in a controlled manner. Three model configurations were employed, among which the Finite Volume Cubed-Sphere (FV3), Unified Model (UM), and Advanced Research version of the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF-ARW) Model dynamical cores were repre-sented. Two runs were produced for each configuration: one driven by NOAA’s Global Forecast System for initial and boundary conditions, and the other driven by the Met Office’s operational global UM. For 32 cases during SFE2020, these runs were initialized at 0000 UTC and integrated for 36 h. Objective verification of model fields relevant to convective forecasting illuminates differences in the influence of configuration versus driving model pertinent to the ongoing problem of optimizing spread and skill in CAM ensembles. The UM and WRF configurations tend to outperform FV3 for forecasts of precipitation, thermodynamics, and simulated radar reflectivity; using a driving model with the native CAM core also tends to produce better skill in aggregate. Reflectivity and thermodynamic forecasts were found to cluster more by configuration than by driving model at lead times greater than 18 h. The two UM configuration experiments had notably similar solutions that, despite competitive aggregate skill, had large errors in the diurnal convective cycle.