the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A terrain-stratified comparison of regional MPAS-A (v8.3.1) and nested WRF (v4.7.1) for short-term near-surface wind forecasting
Abstract. Accurate deterministic forecasts of 10 m wind over complex terrain remain challenging, and the relative performance of nested regional and variable-resolution modelling strategies is still insufficiently documented. This study presents a controlled comparison of five deterministic forecast products over Türkiye: four nested WRF configurations at 12 km parent and 4 km child domain resolution with one-way and two-way nesting, and regional MPAS-Atmosphere with an approximately 4 km refined inner region. All experiments use identical 0.25° GFS forcing, are initialised daily at 00:00 UTC, and integrated for 48 h. After excluding the first 6 h as spin-up, verification is performed over lead times 6–47 h using 10 m wind speed observations from 509 TSMS stations during January and June 2023. Terrain effects are explicitly addressed through a Terrain Ruggedness Index computed from SRTM GL3 elevation data and a three-class terrain stratification. Model performance is assessed using mean error, mean absolute error, root mean square error, and Pearson correlation coefficient.
MPAS achieves the lowest error across all aggregate metrics, with ME of 0.76 m s−1 and RMSE of 2.16 m s−1, compared to 0.99 m s−1 and 2.27 m s−1 for the best WRF configuration. All models exhibit systematic positive bias. The performance gap between MPAS and WRF is strongly terrain-dependent: negligible in low-complexity terrain but reaching 41 % ME reduction at high-complexity sites. Increasing WRF resolution from 12 km to 4 km does not consistently reduce bias, with the coarser 12 km two-way configuration outperforming the finer 4 km two-way configuration across both months and all terrain classes, pointing to grey-zone boundary layer limitations and lateral boundary constraints. Two-way nesting provides meaningful improvement at 12 km but offers diminishing returns at 4 km. MPAS’s aggregate ME advantage partly reflects a compensating bias structure: reduced overprediction at calm and moderate wind speeds is offset by stronger underprediction at high wind speeds, reaching ME of −3.28 m s−1 at high-complexity sites. This wind speed dependence also explains the spatial reversal along the Aegean coast, where WRF 4 km configuration outperforms MPAS at 70 % of stations. These results indicate that neither modelling approach offers a universal advantage; relative performance depends on terrain complexity, local wind climate, and the verification metric of interest.
- Preprint
(2261 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 31 Oct 2026)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3355 - No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 07 Aug 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Ruhi Deniz Yalcin, 10 Aug 2026
reply
Dear Dr. Añel,
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have added references to the WRF (v4.7.1) and MPAS-Atmosphere (v8.3.1) source code repositories in the Code and Data Availability section. Both models are publicly available via their official GitHub repositories. WRF v4.7.1: https://github.com/wrf-model/WRF/tree/v4.7.1. MPAS-Atmosphere v8.3.1: https://github.com/MPAS-Dev/MPAS-Model/tree/v8.3.1.We will update the manuscript accordingly when invited to submit a revised version.
R. Deniz YalcinCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3355-AC1 -
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 10 Aug 2026
reply
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, your proposed solution does not comply with our policy. This is clear in it, establishing that GitHub sites are not valid repositories for scientific publication. GitHub itself instructs authors to use other long-term archival and publishing alternatives, such as Zenodo.
Please, store the code of the models used in your work in a suitable repository, and reply to this comment with a new Code and Data Availability section that complies with the policy of the journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3355-CEC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Ruhi Deniz Yalcin, 10 Aug 2026
reply
Dear Dr. Añel,
Thank you for your comment. We have archived the source code of both models used in this study in permanent Zenodo repositories:
- WRF-ARW v4.7.1: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21874962
- MPAS-Atmosphere v8.3.1: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21875081The updated Code and Data Availability section is provided below:
---
The WRF-ARW (v4.7.1) source code is archived at Zenodo (Yalcin, 2026a; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21874962) and the MPAS-Atmosphere (v8.3.1) source code is archived at Zenodo (Yalcin, 2026b; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21875081). The model configuration files, analysis scripts, and derived verification data used in this study are archived at Zenodo (Yalçın et al., 2026; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20606508). The package includes the WRF namelists, the MPAS namelist and stream files, the JIGSAW mesh-generation scripts, the TRI-processing code, the station-selection workflow, the model-to-station extraction scripts, the Python verification pipeline, and the configuration files required to reproduce the simulations and evaluation reported here. All archived code and data are distributed under the MIT License. The GFS forcing data are publicly available from the NCAR Research Data Archive (National Centers for Environmental Prediction et al., 2015). The TSMS station observations are subject to access restrictions by the Turkish State Meteorological Service; researchers may submit a data request through the TSMS data portal at https://mevbis.mgm.gov.tr/. The derived station-level verification tables and the scripts used to reproduce the reported figures and statistics are archived in the Zenodo repository (Yalçın et al., 2026).
---
We will update the manuscript accordingly when invited to submit a revised version.
Best regards,
Ruhi Deniz Yalcin
on behalf of all co-authorsCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3355-AC2 -
CEC3: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 11 Aug 2026
reply
Dear authors,
Thanks for addressing this issue so quickly. I have checked the repositories and we can consider now the current version of your manuscript in compliance with the code policy of the journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3355-CEC3
-
CEC3: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 11 Aug 2026
reply
-
AC2: 'Reply on CEC2', Ruhi Deniz Yalcin, 10 Aug 2026
reply
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC1', Juan Antonio Añel, 10 Aug 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Ruhi Deniz Yalcin, 10 Aug 2026
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3355', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Aug 2026
reply
This manuscript presents a well-controlled deterministic forecast comparison between nested WRF configurations and regional MPAS-Atmosphere for two contrasting months (January and June 2023). The authors utilize 10 m wind speed observations from 509 TSMS surface stations and stratify model verification by a Terrain Ruggedness Index (TRI) derived from the SRTM GL3 DEM. The manuscript is well structured and strictly satisfies open-science standards by providing reproducible workflows and scripts on Zenodo.
However, the current evaluation relies almost exclusively on surface-level point statistical metrics (ME, MAE, RMSE, and CC). While the phenomenological comparison is solid, the manuscript largely requires process-level diagnostics regarding the dynamical and numerical mechanisms that drive the observed differences between the two modeling frameworks. To meet the scope of GMD, several major scientific points (e.g. WRF two-way feedback, double penalty effects, and numerical/physical vertical diagnostics) should be revised.
Major comments:
1. Reinterpretation of the WRF Resolution and Two-Way Nesting Feedback:
In Sect. 3.5 and 4.2, the authors note a counterintuitive result where WRF-d01-2way (12 km) achieves lower bias (ME) and RMSE than WRF-d02-2way (4 km), attributing this primarily to grey-zone boundary layer limitations and lateral boundary constraints. However, a more plausible numerical explanation stems from the two-way nesting feedback mechanism itself. In WRF two-way nesting, prognostic fields (and certain surface/accumulated variables) calculated on the child domain (d02) are transferred back to the parent domain (d01) via spatial area-averaging (3x3 grid-cell filtering because of domain ratio).
This spatial aggregation naturally filters out high-frequency noise and local sub-grid variability. When verified against point station observations, the smoothed d01 field inherently benefits from reduced variance and a mitigated "double penalty" effect (where small spatial/temporal displacement errors in fine-scale circulations double the statistical error penalty). The fact that d02 achieves higher correlation coefficients (CC) in June despite higher ME strongly supports this spatial filtering hypothesis. The authors should revise the discussion in Sect. 4.2 to address the spatial area-averaging and variance-reduction effects of two-way feedback rather than relying on speculative grey-zone arguments.
2. Need for Process-Level and Vertical Profile Diagnostics:
To fulfill the model development and evaluation objectives of GMD, the analysis should extend beyond single-level (10 m) scalar statistics. The authors identify a compensating bias structure in MPAS. To physically explain this behavior, representative case studies or composite analyses over high-TRI areas should include (e.g. Vertical profiles of horizontal wind speed, and turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) within the boundary layer / the implications of differing vertical coordinates on horizontal pressure gradient force (PGF) errors over steep topography ...)
3. Limitations of Nearest-Neighbor Point Extraction:
The model-to-observation pairing extracts the value at the nearest grid center without interpolation. Because a 12 km grid cell represents a footprint of ~ 144 km^2 while a 4 km grid cell represents ~ 16 km^2, comparing single point measurements directly against grid-scale values introduces representative scale discrepancies. The manuscript should explicitly acknowledge this representativeness disparity or consider spatial verification perspectives (e.g., neighborhood verification or upscale spatial smoothing) to evaluate the true added value of high-resolution models.
Minor Comments:
- MPAS Lateral Boundary Conditions: Please provide a brief explanation of how lateral boundary relaxation zones are configured in MPAS-Limited-Area relative to the boundary buffer zones in WRF d01/d02 to ensure consistent comparison of boundary forcing effects.
- Lines 498-507: The authors state that numerical differences (advection order, vertical coordinate formulation) were not isolated through sensitivity runs based on findings from previous stduies. While understandable, the text should clarify that topography-induced flow separation and wave breaking over Turkiye's terrain might respond differently to vertical coordinate formulation and horizontal diffusion than over the previous studies.
- Figure 10: The zero-crossing analysis across observed wind speed bins provides valuable insight. It would be helpful to include sample sizes (or frequency distributions) for each wind speed bin to highlight how representative the high-wind bins are within each TRI class.
- The unit for wind speed is inconsistently formatted across the manuscript (e.g., "m s-1", "m $s-1$". Please unify all instances into standard SI format (${m s}^{-1}$).Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3355-RC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Ruhi Deniz Yalcin, 08 Sep 2026
reply
The authors' response is provided as supplementary file to this discussion.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Ruhi Deniz Yalcin, 08 Sep 2026
reply
Data sets
Code and data for: Near-surface wind prediction over terrain of varying complexity: a comparison of MPAS-Atmosphere and nested WRF R. D. Yalçın et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20606508
Model code and software
Code and data for: Near-surface wind prediction over terrain of varying complexity: a comparison of MPAS-Atmosphere and nested WRF R. D. Yalçın et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20606508
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 317 | 122 | 42 | 481 | 31 | 29 |
- HTML: 317
- PDF: 122
- XML: 42
- Total: 481
- BibTeX: 31
- EndNote: 29
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
In the Code and Data Availability section of your manuscript you do not provide a repository for the WRF and MPAS models used in your work, and you must do it. Given this lack of compliance, your manuscript should not have been accepted for Discussions.
The GMD review and publication process depends on reviewers and community commentators being able to access, during the discussion phase, the code and data on which a manuscript depends, and on ensuring the provenance of replicability of the published papers for years after their publication. Please, therefore, publish the WRF and MPAS codes in one of the appropriate repositories and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and a permanent identifier for it (e.g. DOI)) as soon as possible. We cannot have manuscripts under discussion that do not comply with our policy.
Later, if the Topical Editor decides to continue with the review or publication process of your manuscript and you are requested to upload a new version of it, then The 'Code and Data Availability’ section of your manuscript must also be modified to cite the new repository locations, and corresponding references added to the bibliography.
I must note that if you do not fix this problem, we cannot continue with the peer-review process or accept your manuscript for publication in GMD.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor