Theoretical and Applied Climatology

, Volume 134, Issue 3–4, pp 1135–1151 | Cite as

Customized framework of the WRF model for regional climate simulation over the Eastern NILE basin

  • Mohamed AbdelwaresEmail author
  • Mohammed Haggag
  • Ahmad Wagdy
  • Jos Lelieveld
Original Paper


Different configurations of the Weather and Research Forecasting (WRF-ARW) regional climate model, centered over the Eastern Nile Basin, have been investigated. Extensive sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the model performance in simulating precipitation and surface air temperature, focusing on the horizontal extent of the simulation domain, the mesh size and the parameterizations of the boundary layer, radiation, cloud microphysics, and convection. A simulation period of 2 years (1998–1999) was used to assess the model performance during the rainy season (June–September) and the dry season (December–March). Three sets of numerical experiments were conducted. The first tested the effects of changing the horizontal extent of the simulation domain; three domains have been examined to investigate, e.g., the effect of including a larger part of the Indian Ocean, for which no significant impact was found. The second set of experiments tested the sensitivity of WRF to the horizontal mesh size (about 16, 12, and 10 km). It was found that increased resolution results in a more accurate simulation of precipitation and surface temperature. The third set of experiments was designed to select the optimal combination of physics parameterizations. All simulations were forced by ERA-Interim reanalysis data to provide initial and boundary conditions, including sea surface temperature, and the Noah land surface model (NPAH) was used to simulate land surface processes. To rate the model performance, we used a range of statistical metrics, summarized with a scoring technique to obtain a single index that ranks different alternatives. The simulated precipitation was found to be much more sensitive to the choice of physics parameterization compared to the surface air temperature. Precipitation was most sensitive to changing the cumulus and the planetary boundary layer schemes, and least sensitive to changing the microphysics scheme. Modifying the long-wave radiation scheme led to more significant changes compared to the short-wave radiation scheme.


  1. Ahmed KF, Wang G, Silander J, Wilson AM, Allen JM, Horton R, Anyah R (2013) Statistical downscaling and bias correction of climate model outputs for climate change impact assessment in the U.S. northeast. Glob Planet Chang. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argent R, Sun X, Semazzi F, Xie L, Liu B (2015) The Development of a Customization Framework for the WRF Model over the Lake Victoria Basin, Eastern Africa on Seasonal Timescales. Adv Meteorol. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benestad RE (2008) Empirical-Statistical Downscaling. World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen F, Mitchell K, Schaake J, Xue Y, Pan HL, Koren V, Duan QY, Ek M, Betts A (1996) Modeling of land surface evaporation by four schemes and comparison with FIFE observations. J Geophys Res 101(D3):7251–7268. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins WD, Rasch PJ, Boville BA et al (2004) Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM3.0). NCAR Technical Note TN-464 + STR, National Center of Atmosphere ResearchGoogle Scholar
  6. Dee DP, Uppala SM, Simmons AJ, Berrisford P, Poli P, Kobayashi S, Andrae U, Balmaseda MA, Balsamo G, Bauer P, Bechtold P, Beljaars ACM, van de Berg L, Bidlot J, Bormann N, Delsol C, Dragani R, Fuentes M, Geer AJ, Haimberger L, Healy SB, Hersbach H, Hólm EV, Isaksen L, Kållberg P, Köhler M, Matricardi M, McNally AP, Monge-Sanz BM, Morcrette JJ, Park BK, Peubey C, de Rosnay P, Tavolato C, Thépaut JN, Vitart F (2011) The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Q J R Meteorol Soc 137(656):553–597. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dudhia J (1989) Numerical study of convection observed during the winter monsoon experiment using a mesoscale two–dimensional model. J Atmos Sci 46(20):3077–3107.<3077:NSOCOD>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dudhia J (2014) A history of mesoscale model development. Asia-Pac J Atmos Sci 50(1):121–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flaounas E, Bastin S, Janicot S (2011) Regional climate modelling of the 2006 West African monsoon: sensitivity to convection and planetary boundary layer parameterisation using WRF. Clim Dyn 36(5–6):1083–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. García-Díez M, Fernández J, Fita L, Yagüe C (2013) Seasonal dependence of WRF model biases and sensitivity to PBL schemes over Europe. Q J R Meteorol Soc 139(671):501–514. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grell GA (1993) Prognostic evaluation of assumptions used by cumulus parameterizations. Mon Weather Rev 121(3):764–787.<0764:PEOAUB>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grell GA, Devenyi D (2002) A generalized approach to parameterizing convection combining ensemble and data assimilation techniques. Geophys Res Lett 29(14):38-1–38-4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hay LE, Clark MP (2003) Use of statistically and dynamically downscaled atmospheric model output for hydrologic simulations in three mountainous basins in the western United States. J Hydrol 282(1–4):56–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hay LE, Wilby RL, Leavesley GH (2000) A comparison of delta change and downscaled GCM scenarios for three mountainous basins in the United States. J Am Water Resour Assoc 36(2):387–397. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hong SY, Lim JOJ (2006) The WRF single–moment 6–class microphysics scheme (WSM6). J Korean Meteor Soc 42(2):129–151Google Scholar
  16. Hong SY, Dudhia J, Chen SH (2004) A revised approach to ice microphysical processes for the bulk parameterization of clouds and precipitation. Mon Weather Rev 132(1):103–120.<0103:ARATIM>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hong SY, Noh Y, Dudhia J (2006) A new vertical diffusion package with an explicit treatment of entrainment processes. Mon Weather Rev 134(9):2318–2341. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Janjic ZI (1994) The step–mountain eta coordinate model: further developments of the convection, viscous sublayer, and turbulence closure schemes. Mon Weather Rev 122(5):927–945.<0927:TSMECM>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones PG, Thornton PK (2013) Generating downscaled weather data from a suite of climate models for agricultural modelling applications. Agric Syst 114:1–5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kain JS (2004) The Kain–Fritsch convective parameterization: an update. J Appl Meteorol 43(1):170–181.<0170:TKCPAU>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Legates DR, McCabe GJ (1999) Evaluating the use of goodness-of-fit measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour Res 35(1):233–241. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lin YL, Richard DF, Harold DO (1983) Bulk parameterization of the snow field in a cloud model. J Clim Appl Meteorol 22(6):1065–1092.<1065:BPOTSF>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Michalakes J, Chen S, Dudhia J, Hart L, Klemp J, Middlecoff J, Skamarock W (2001) Development of a next generation regional weather research and forecast model, developments in teracomputing: proceedings of the ninth ECMWF workshop on the use of high performance computing in meteorology, vol 1. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 269–276Google Scholar
  24. Mlawer EJ, Taubman SJ, Brown PD, Iacono MJ, Clough SA (1997) Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the longwave. J Geophys Res: Atmos 102(D14):16,663–16,682. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mooney PA, Mulligan FJ, Fealy R (2013) Evaluation of the sensitivity of the weather research and forecasting model to parameterization schemes for regional climates of Europe over the period 1990–95. J Clim 26(3):1002–1017. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. NOAA (2001) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration changes to the NCEP Meso Eta analysis and forecast system: increase in resolution, new cloud microphysics, modified precipitation assimilation, modified 3DVAR analysis.
  27. Pleim JE (2007) A combined local and nonlocal closure model for the atmospheric boundary layer. Part I: model description and testing. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 46(9):1383–1395. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ruiz J, Saulo JC, Nogués-Paegle J (2010) WRF model sensitivity to choice of parameterization over South America: validation against surface variables. Mon Weather Rev 138(8):3342–3355. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schneider U, Becker A, Finger P, Meyer-Christoffer A, Rudolf B, Ziese M (2011) GPCC full data reanalysis version 6.0 at 0.5: monthly land-surface precipitation from rain-gauges built on GTS-based and historic data. doi:
  30. Semenov EM (2012) LARS-WG a stochastic weather generator for use in climate impact studies. User’s manual, Version 3.0.
  31. Skamarock WC, Klemp JB, Dudhia J, Gill DO, Barker DM, Wang W, Powers JG (2008) A description of the Advanced Research WRF Version 3. NCAR Technical Note TN-464 + STR, National Center of Atmosphere ResearchGoogle Scholar
  32. Tao WK, Joanne S, Michael M (1989) An Ice–Water Saturation Adjustment. Mon Weather Rev 117(1):231–235.<0231:AIWSA>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Taylor KE (2001) Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram. J Geophys Res. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tewari M, et al (2004) Implementation and verification of the unified NOAH land surface model in the WRF model. 20th conference on weather analysis and forecasting/16th conference on numerical weather prediction (formerly paper number 17.5) pp. 11–15.
  35. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2013) Statistical Downscaling Model. Compendium of methods and tools to evaluate impacts of, and vulnerability and adaptation to, climate change.
  36. Wilby RL, Dawson CW (2013) The statistical downscaling model: insights from one decade of application. Int J Climatol 33(7):1707–1719. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilby RL, Troni J, Biot Y, Tedd L, Hewitson BC, Smith DM, Sutton RT (2009) A review of climate risk information for adaptation and development planning. Int J Climatol 29(9):1193–1215. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Willmott CJ (1981) On the validation of models. Phys Geogr 2(2):184–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yin C (2011) Applications of self-organizing maps to statistical downscaling of major regional climate variables. Dissertation, Environmental Science, University of WaikatoGoogle Scholar
  40. Zittis G, Hadjinicolaou P, Lelieveld J (2014) Comparison of WRF model physics parameterizations over the MENA-CORDEX domain. Am J Clim Chang 3(05):490–511. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zorita E, Von Storch H (1999) The analog method as a simple statistical downscaling technique: comparison with more complicated methods. J Clim 12(8):2474–2489.<2474:TAMAAS>2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed Abdelwares
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mohammed Haggag
    • 1
  • Ahmad Wagdy
    • 1
  • Jos Lelieveld
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Irrigation and Hydraulics, Faculty of EngineeringCairo UniversityGizaEgypt
  2. 2.Atmospheric Chemistry DepartmentMax Planck Institute for ChemistryMainzGermany
  3. 3.Energy, Environment and Water Research CenterCyprus InstituteNicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations