Extreme Rainfall Forecast with the WRF-ARW Model in the Central Andes of Peru
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability of the WRF-ARW (Weather Research and Forecasting-Advanced Research WRF) model to forecast extreme rainfall in the Central Andes of Peru is evaluated in this study, using observations from stations located in the Mantaro basin and GOES (Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite) images. The evaluation analyzes the synoptic conditions averaged over 40 extreme event cases, and considers model simulations organized in 4 nested domains. We first establish that atypical events in the region are those with more than 27 mm of rainfall per day when averaging over all the stations. More than 50% of the selected cases occurred during January, February, and April, with the most extreme occurring during February. The average synoptic conditions show negative geopotential anomalies and positive humidity anomalies in 700 and 500 hPa. At 200 hPa, the subtropical upper ridge or “Bolivian high” was present, with its northern divergent flank over the Mantaro basin. Simulation results show that the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model underestimates rainfall totals in approximately 50–60% of cases, mainly in the south of the basin and in the extreme west along the mountain range. The analysis of two case studies shows that the underestimation by the model is probably due to three reasons: inability to generate convection in the upstream Amazon during early morning hours, apparently related to processes of larger scales; limitations on describing mesoscale processes that lead to vertical movements capable of producing extreme rainfall; and limitations on the microphysics scheme to generate heavy rainfall.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".