WG4: interpretation and applications A success story… to be continued… Pierre Eckert MeteoSwiss, Geneva

Topics FIELDEXTRA  presentation by JM Bettems Retrospective (short) Perspectives

WG4 retrospective 2001: Inventory of postprocessing methods, COSMO LEPS ~2008: separation of ensemble part to WG7 2009: Project INTERP (scale dependent verification), inclusion of FIELDEXTRA as universal postprocessing method 2012: Project CORSO (winter Olympics SOCHI) Participation into various activities: Verification and guidelines for forecasters NWP Test suite Feed back from forecasters Specific applications (CAT, TS indices,…)

COSMO LEPS Became operational on ECMWF units Available to all COSMO states 10 km  7 km 16  20 members Extension of the domain Still used, also as a testbed / benchmark

WG4 retrospective 2001: Inventory of postprocessing methods, COSMO LEPS ~2008: separation of the ensemble part to WG7 2009: Project INTERP (scale dependent verification) Inclusion of FIELDEXTRA as universal postprocessing method 2012: Project CORSO (winter Olympics SOCHI) Participation into various activities: Verification and guidelines for forecasters NWP Test suite Feed back from forecasters Specific applications (CAT, TS indices,…)

Motivation: precipitation pattern 2km 7km

Expected behaviour of scores From Nigel Roberts (2005)

What verification is useful to forecasters? Verification has to be local (not too much)… …and stratified It can be stratified by type of phenomena (thunderstorms, drizzle,…) either observed or forecasted Or by type of synoptic situation The verification results can be used in order to implement targeted postprocessing (decision trees)… …or be used by the forecasters in order to correct the models not to use them in certain situations use different indicators from models (instability,…) The verification should be relevant to the present version of the model

Work already done Precipitation bias by weather class (Zala) 2008, SW 2008, flat

Work already done Fuzzy verification by weather class (Weusthoff) We think about how to communicate the results

YEAR 2010 NE (11x) S (10x) COSMO-7 better COSMO-2 better differences in Fractions Skill Score for weather-type dependant verif COSMO-2 minus COSMO-7 F (78x) N (18x) SW (49x) H (73x) E (4x) NW (38x) W (56x) SE (4x) L (25x)

Summary neighbourhood verification precipitation in 2010 The skill of the models varies for different weather types and the differences between COSMO-2 and COSMO-7 varies also: - best skill: Autumn and Spring, south to northwest weather types - greatest difference COSMO-2 minus COSMO-7: Summer and Winter, north- and east types, convective cases Tanja Weusthoff

WG4 retrospective 2001: Inventory of postprocessing methods, COSMO LEPS ~2008: separation of the ensemble part to WG7 2009: Project INTERP (scale dependent verification) Inclusion of FIELDEXTRA as universal postprocessing method 2012: Project CORSO (winter Olympics SOCHI) Participation into various activities: Verification and guidelines for forecasters NWP Test suite Feed back from forecasters Specific applications (CAT, TS indices,…)

WG4 retrospective 2001: Inventory of postprocessing methods, COSMO LEPS ~2008: separation of the ensemble part to WG7 2009: Project INTERP (scale dependent verification) Inclusion of FIELDEXTRA as universal postprocessing method 2012: Project CORSO (winter Olympics SOCHI) Participation into various activities: Verification and guidelines for forecasters NWP Test suite Feed back from forecasters Specific applications (CAT, TS indices,…)

WG4 retrospective Always keep in view the bridge(s) between modellers and users (forecasters). Difficulties The exchange of application and methods between countries is difficult. Postprocessing and forecasters usually sit in other departments/divisions and do not participate to COSMO activities/meetings.

WG4 perspectives Discussions since January with SMC and STC Nominate a focal point to WG4 in each country Germany : M. Paulat Switzerland : D. Cattani Italy : A Canessa Greece : D. Boucouvala Poland : A. Mazur Romania : A. Iriza Russia : A. Bundel Israel : A. Savir, E. Brainin STC nominates a coordinator among them Welcome and good luck Anastasia

WG4 perspectives Define terms of reference for WG4 with (new) orientations. Will be precised by the WG. Survey the development of “generic” “products” (Fog, Thunderstorms, Wind at a specific location and height, clear air turbulence (CAT), Icing, high impact weather). “generic” means among others “not comercial”, “can be exchanged/used by all COSMO members” Develop optimal aggregation and calibration methods Survey (coordinate) methods intended to blend model output and observations, for instance in very short range forecasting. Develop and promote guidelines to users/forecasters

WG4 perspectives WG4 should not only be considered as considering activities happening downstream of the models, but should also convey back the requirements and worries of the users / forecasters to all WGs and the COSMO management. PTs and PPs will be defined. The whole WG will meet when the survey of requirements will be complete.

Many thanks to all of you It has been my great pleasure to participate to COSMO since 2001. The consortium has since then doubled in number of member states and probably also in the amount of participating scientists. The structure and governance has evolved a lot, I hope in a sense of efficiency. The models have evolved from a 14km resolution to 1km with explicit convection. I would like to thank the successive SPMs Günther Doms, Tiziana Paccagnella, Marco Arpagaus, Michał Ziemiański and Dmitrii Mironov for fruitful collaboration. Also all members of the STC for the organisation and support. Last but not least all other WG coordinators for the collaboration they offered in the SMC. The relationship between forecasters and modelers is usually impregnated alternatively by hate and love. I was trying to promote the comprehension between these two worlds not only by explaining the strengths and weaknesses of the models, but also to bring back the requirements of the forecasters to the (more and more numerous) modelers. I also had the opportunity to meet interesting people from other countries. I think I can consider COSMO as a part of my (extended) family. I certainly will continue to consider these 16 years as a beautiful part of my life.

Welcome to the new life