Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Forecasting convective precipitation over complex terrain requires accurate thermodynamic initialization. We developed a WRFDA 3D-Var framework combining nominally clear-sky FY-3E MWTS-3/MWHS-2 radiances, artificial-neural-network (ANN)-retrieved cloudy-sky thermodynamic profiles, and ground-based microwave radiometer (MWR) profiles. In a 5–15 July 2024 inner-domain sample, cloud routing assigned 66.1% of MWTS-3 and 66.9% of MWHS-2 fields of view to the cloudy-sky pathway. Independent radiosonde validation yielded RMSEs of 2.537 K for land temperature and 1.071 g kg−1 for bias-corrected land specific humidity, although a −1.748 K cold bias remained in temperature. Principal precipitation comparisons of four experiments (CTRL, FY, MWR, and FY-MWR) used a common CV7 background-error covariance configuration across nine daily forecasts over Chongqing during 7–15 July. During the principal 10–11 July event, MWR performed comparatively well at selected light-to-moderate precipitation thresholds, whereas FY-MWR had the highest TS at the highest 24 h thresholds. In pooled nine-day verification, CTRL retained the highest threat scores at 0.1–50 mm, while FY-MWR had the highest point estimate at 100 mm (0.083 versus 0.048 for CTRL); however, the paired bootstrap confidence interval for the FY-MWR-minus-CTRL difference included zero. Instability, convective inhibition, moisture-flux convergence, and vertical-motion diagnostics showed time-dependent relationships with precipitation differences. The results therefore indicate event- and intensity-dependent forecast responses rather than uniformly improved forecasts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: