Assessment of MPAS and WRF models for Severe Weather Forecasting in Southern Brazil

This study assesses the performance of a regional WRF configuration used operationally by SIMEPAR (SIWRF) and a set of MPAS experiments at 5-km grid spacing over southern Brazil to predict four recent severe weather events. MPAS is tested using a 200-5 km global variable-resolution (VR) mesh with two physics suites—Mesoscale Reference (MR) and Convection-Permitting (CP)—and two sources of initial conditions — NCEP-GFS and ECMWF-IFS forecasts. Skill is evaluated with respect to 48-h accumulated precipitation (correlation, bias, RMSE), hourly precipitation (fractions skill score; FSS, and QPF measures), radar reflectivity (FSS), near-surface variables (MAE, Taylor diagrams), and vertical soundings (bias, RMSE). Across events, MPAS generally outperforms SIWRF for precipitation, with CP physics suite often reducing positive bias relative to MR, while SIWRF tends to underestimate totals during the heaviest events. Notably, MR-IFS achieves the highest correlation for the event dominated by a long-lived, organized convective system, whereas CP-IFS provides the most balanced metrics in two other cases, including the coastal event, consistent with improved placement and intensity of convection. SIWRF exhibits the lowest skill for radar reflectivity, while MPAS shows event-dependent gains, particularly for MR-IFS and CP-GFS. Analysis of convective parameters reveal that MR configurations produce higher median CAPE and 0–3-km SRH than CP and SIWRF, implying more favorable storm environments. These results highlight event-dependent sensitivity to physics and initial conditions and suggest that tailoring MPAS configuration to event features (e.g., favoring CP physics for coastal/diurnally forced convection and MR physics for strongly forced organized systems) may improve forecasts, but this inference is preliminary and requires broader testing (larger case set, data assimilation, ensemble and operational-runtime evaluation) before operational adoption. • First comparison of MPAS and operational WRF for severe weather in southern Brazil. • MPAS with 200-5 km global VR mesh often outperformed 5-km regional WRF. • MPAS precipitation skill and biases strongly depend on physical options and IC source. • MPAS forecasts improved when initialized with ECMWF-IFS ICs rather than NCEP-GFS.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Weather and Climate Extremes
Published
2026-03-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2026.100883
Primary Topic
Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Assessment of MPAS and WRF models for Severe Weather Forecasting in Southern Brazil

José Antonio Mantovani Júnior, Fabrício Rios Nascimento Santos, Rafael Toshio Inouye, Helber Barros Gomes et al.
Weather and Climate Extremes
Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
article

Assessment of MPAS and WRF models for Severe Weather Forecasting in Southern Brazil

José Antonio Mantovani Júnior, Fabrício Rios Nascimento Santos, Rafael Toshio Inouye, Helber Barros Gomes, Matheus José Arruda Lyra, Sheila Paz, Dirceu Luís Herdies, Sergio Ibarra Espinosa, Leonardo Calvetti, Reinaldo Olmar Kneib, César Beneti
article en

Abstract

This study assesses the performance of a regional WRF configuration used operationally by SIMEPAR (SIWRF) and a set of MPAS experiments at 5-km grid spacing over southern Brazil to predict four recent severe weather events. MPAS is tested using a 200-5 km global variable-resolution (VR) mesh with two physics suites—Mesoscale Reference (MR) and Convection-Permitting (CP)—and two sources of initial conditions — NCEP-GFS and ECMWF-IFS forecasts. Skill is evaluated with respect to 48-h accumulated precipitation (correlation, bias, RMSE), hourly precipitation (fractions skill score; FSS, and QPF measures), radar reflectivity (FSS), near-surface variables (MAE, Taylor diagrams), and vertical soundings (bias, RMSE). Across events, MPAS generally outperforms SIWRF for precipitation, with CP physics suite often reducing positive bias relative to MR, while SIWRF tends to underestimate totals during the heaviest events. Notably, MR-IFS achieves the highest correlation for the event dominated by a long-lived, organized convective system, whereas CP-IFS provides the most balanced metrics in two other cases, including the coastal event, consistent with improved placement and intensity of convection. SIWRF exhibits the lowest skill for radar reflectivity, while MPAS shows event-dependent gains, particularly for MR-IFS and CP-GFS. Analysis of convective parameters reveal that MR configurations produce higher median CAPE and 0–3-km SRH than CP and SIWRF, implying more favorable storm environments. These results highlight event-dependent sensitivity to physics and initial conditions and suggest that tailoring MPAS configuration to event features (e.g., favoring CP physics for coastal/diurnally forced convection and MR physics for strongly forced organized systems) may improve forecasts, but this inference is preliminary and requires broader testing (larger case set, data assimilation, ensemble and operational-runtime evaluation) before operational adoption. • First comparison of MPAS and operational WRF for severe weather in southern Brazil. • MPAS with 200-5 km global VR mesh often outperformed 5-km regional WRF. • MPAS precipitation skill and biases strongly depend on physical options and IC source. • MPAS forecasts improved when initialized with ECMWF-IFS ICs rather than NCEP-GFS.

Weather and Climate ExtremesVol. 52
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US), Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (US), Universidade Federal de Pelotas (BR), Instituto de Tecnologia do Paraná (BR), Tomorrows Children’s Fund (US), Universidade Federal de Alagoas (BR), Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (BR)
Life below water
Openalex Percentile: Top 49%
Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.