the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Urban heat forecasting in small cities: Evaluation of a high-resolution operational numerical weather prediction model
Abstract. With rising global temperatures, urban environments are increasingly vulnerable to heat stress, often exacerbated by the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. While most UHI research has focused on large metropolitan areas around the world, relatively smaller-sized cities (with a population 100,000–300,000) remain understudied despite their growing exposure to extreme heat and meteorological significance. In particular, urban heat advection (UHA), the transport of heat by mean winds, remains a key but underexplored mechanism in most modelling frameworks. High-resolution numerical weather prediction (NWP) models are essential tools for simulating urban hydrometeorological conditions, yet most prior evaluations have focused on retrospective reanalysis products rather than forecasts. In this study, we assess the performance of a widely used operational weather forecast model—the High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR)—as a representative example of current NWP systems. We investigate its ability to predict spatial and temporal patterns of urban heat and UHA within and around Lubbock, Texas, a small-sized city located in a semi-arid environment in the southwestern U.S. Using data collected between 1 September 2023, and 31 August 2024 from the Urban Heat Island Experiment in Lubbock, Texas (U-HEAT) network and five West Texas Mesonet stations, we compare 18-h forecasts against in situ observations. HRRR forecasts exhibit a consistent nighttime cold bias at both urban and rural sites, a daytime warm bias at rural locations, and a pervasive dry bias across all seasons. The model also systematically overestimates near-surface wind speeds, further limiting its ability to accurately predict UHA. Although HRRR captures the expected slower nocturnal cooling in urban areas, it does not well capture advective heat transport under most wind regimes. Our findings reveal both systematic biases and urban representation limitations in current high-resolution NWP forecasts. Our forecast–observation comparisons underscore the need for improved urban parameterizations and evaluation frameworks focused on forecast skill, with important implications for heat-risk warning systems and forecasting in small and mid-sized cities.
- Preprint
(5980 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3712 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 25 Sep 2025)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3397', Astrid Kerkweg, 31 Jul 2025
reply
Dear Authors,
in the "Code and data availability" section the information how to access the HRRR model code is missing. This information needs to be provided latest upon revision of the article.
Best regards, Astrid Kerkweg (GMD executive editor)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3397-CEC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3397', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Sep 2025
reply
This study comprehensively compared between HRRRv4 forecasts data with situ observations in a small-sized city located in the semi-arid climate of US. The detailed validation conducted on a medium-sized city remote from mega cities is particularly noteworthy, especially the inclusion of verification for urban heat advection. However, the content of this paper, particularly the sections of introduction and discussion, requires revision to highlight the study's key findings and insights.
Major comments
(1) The study provides a valuable analysis of Lubbock. To broaden the implications, might the authors consider incorporating additional small-sized cities with different climate background?
(2) Given that this study primarily focuses on the evaluation of HRRR forecasts, a more comprehensive overview of previous validation studies concerning HRRR (or other high-resolution operational forecasts) within the introduction would strengthen the argument. At the same time, the reasons for evaluating forecasts rather than reanalysis products should be more clearly presented.
(3) Lines 62–77: The introduction of ULSM/UCM is too detailed. Such description may initially lead readers to assume that the paper is about developing or coupling a new UCM into NWP. A more appropriate focus would be on the limited assessment of slab models within operational forecasting.
(4) The focus on a small-sized city is an important contribution. To better highlight this value, the results and discussion could both include more explicit comparisons with validation results from large metropolitan areas. For example, how do the prediction errors of HRRRv4 forecasts data found in Lubbock differ (in quantitative terms) from errors reported in studies of large cities?
Minor
The acronym urban heat advection (UHA) is only defined in the abstract. Please also spell it out at its first occurrence in the introduction.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3397-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3397', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Sep 2025
reply
This study evaluates HRRRv4 forecasts against two observational networks in Lubbock, Texas: the dedicated U-HEAT deployed across the city, and the regional West Texas Mesonet. The U-HEAT dataset is a clear strength of the paper and provides a valuable basis and a detailed year-long assessment of systematic model biases. The inclusion of nocturnal cooling rates and urban heat advection in the evaluation is an important contribution as it extends the analysis beyond standard meteorological variables. The manuscript is well organised, with clear sections, and is relevant for both urban climate studies and operational forecasting applications. At the same time, certain aspects of the study could be clarified and extended to further strengthen the generalisability and reproducibility:
- Major comments:
1. Since the study is centred on a single mid-sized city in a semi-arid climate, it would strengthen the conclusions to discuss more explicitly how the identified biases might generalise to other small cities under different climatic conditions. A brief paragraph clarifying transferability across different climatic regimes would help readers gauge generalisability.2. The evaluation of nocturnal cooling rates (Sect. 3.3) is informative, but is based on a subset of nights with continuous domain-wide cloud cover below 25% and statistically significant cooling (p<0.05) (Sect. 2.5). To assess robustness, it would help to report how many nights satisfy the cloud-cover filter and to briefly justify the chosen threshold at 25%.
- Minor comment:
The acronym UHA is introduced in the abstract but not defined at its first occurrence in the main text (Sect. 1, line 97). Please ensure that acronyms are consistently defined when first used in the manuscript.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3397-RC2
Data sets
Source data Yuqi Huang and Chenghao Wang https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15885174
Model code and software
Source code Yuqi Huang and Chenghao Wang https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15885174
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
837 | 62 | 15 | 914 | 32 | 12 | 21 |
- HTML: 837
- PDF: 62
- XML: 15
- Total: 914
- Supplement: 32
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1