Experience Experience in numerical forecast in numerical forecast verification verification in the Hydrometeorological in the Hydrometeorological Centre of Russia Centre of Russia N. P. Shakina, E. N. Skriptunova, A. R. Ivanova Zürich 2005 COSMO 7th General Meeting
20
Embed
Experience in numerical forecast verification in the Hydrometeorological Centre of Russia
COSMO 7th General Meeting. Experience in numerical forecast verification in the Hydrometeorological Centre of Russia. N. P. Shakina, E. N. Skriptunova, A. R. Ivanova Z ürich 2005. The models: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Experience Experience in numerical forecast verification in numerical forecast verification
in the Hydrometeorological in the Hydrometeorological Centre of RussiaCentre of Russia
N. P. Shakina, E. N. Skriptunova, A. R. Ivanova
Zürich 2005
COSMO 7th General Meeting
The models:The models:• SM HMC, global spectral model (T85L31) of Hydrometeorological Centre of Russia
• SLM HMC, global semi-Lagrangian model, resolution 0.9x0.720, 28 σ-levels to 6 hPa
• UKMO global model
The objective analyses:The objective analyses:• OA UKMO, 2.5x2.5o
• OA HMC, operative version, 2.5x2.5o and 1.25x1.25o
• OA DAS (Data Assimilation System) of SLM HMC
WMO/ICAO standards for high levelsWMO/ICAO standards for high levels::
Wind speed, error above 250 hPa 10 m/s in 90 % of points
Wind speed, error below 250 hPa 7 m/s in 90 % of points
Wind direction error 30 deg in 90 % of points
Max wind level height, error 600 m in 70 % of points
Tropopause height error 600 m in 70 % of points
Convective cloud top error 600 m in 70 % of points
00 - - 768 87 False alarms, number of gridpoints 12 - - 1312 142
00 - - 1611 175 Aim missings, number of gridpoints 12 - - 765 86
Comparison of LNB>2km 24-h forecasts against different objective analyses taken as ‘facts”, 1-10 October 2004 (cont.)
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Apart from standard criteria of numerical forecast accuracy, we estimate regularly (10 days in central month of seasons) accuracy of predicted quantities obtained from the model output data by means of post-processing.
2. The quantities under consideration represent cumulative characteristics of
wind profile (maximum wind),
wind and temperature profiles and horizontal distributions (potential vorticity),
temperature and humidity profiles (convective instability).
CONCLUSIONS (cont.):
3. Accuracies of maximum wind, tropopause, convection (and others) are estimated for the operatively used global models (SM HMC, SLM HMC, UKMO model) and for the corresponding objective analyses.
4. The results allow us revealing and quantitatively estimating features of models and their DAS which are not clearly seen from the standard accuracy criteria, for example:
spectral dependence of wind errors;
smoothing of tropopause funnels and domes by the models;
“diurnal cycle” of convective instability
CONCLUSIONS (cont.):
5. Analysis of these effects, in a close co-operation with the model developers and with numerical forecast users (aviation forecasters) leads to better interpretation of the numerical forecasts and to improving of the models.