{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020871985157699443, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00927643784786642, 'mean_word_length': 5.5963302752293576, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A regional climate study of Central America using the MM5 modeling system: results and comparison to observations

The Mesoscale Modeling system, version 3.6 (MM5) regional modeling system has been applied to Central America and has been evaluated against National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Climatic Data Center (NOAA/NCDC) daily observations and the Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) precipitation data. We compare model results and observations for 1997 and evaluate various climate parameters (temperature, wind speed, precipitation and water vapor mixing ratio), emphasizing the differences within the context of the station dependent geographical features and the land use (LU) categories. At 9 of the 16 analyzed stations the modeled temperature, wind speed and vapor mixing ratio are in agreement with observations with average model‐observation differences consistently lower than 25%. MM5 has better performance at stations strongly impacted by monsoon systems, regions typified by low topography in coastal areas and areas characterized by evergreen, broad‐leaf and shrub land vegetation types. At four stations the model precipitation is about a factor of 3–5 higher than the observations, while the simulated wind is roughly twice what is observed. These stations include two inland stations characterized by croplands close to water bodies; one coastal station in El Salvador adjacent to a mountain‐based cropland area and one station at sea‐level. This suggests that the model does not adequately represent the influence of topographic features and water bodies close to these stations. In general, the model agrees reasonably well with measurements and therefore provides an acceptable description of regional climate. The simulations in this study use only two seasonal maps of land cover. The main model discrepancies are likely attributable to the actual annual cycle of land–atmosphere vapor and energy exchange that has a temporal scale of days to weeks. These fluxes are impacted by surface moisture availability, albedo and thermal inertia parameters. Copyright © 2006 Royal Meteorological Society.