COSMO PP QPF workshop 8 March 2006 Langen Marco Arpagaus.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

VERIFICATION Highligths by WG5. 9° General MeetingAthens September Working package/Task on “standardization” The “core” Continuous parameters: T2m,

Advertisements

14 May 2001QPF Verification Workshop Verification of Probability Forecasts at Points WMO QPF Verification Workshop Prague, Czech Republic May 2001.

Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss The Latent Heat Nudging Scheme of COSMO EWGLAM/SRNWP Meeting,

National Weather Service Protecting Lives and Property Precipitation Potential Placement ER Flash Flood Workshop Jeff Myers/Jim Noel NOAA/NWS/OHRFC

Types of rainfall What are the different types of rain and where do they happen?

14th ALADIN Workshop, Innsbruck 1-4 June 2004 First LAMEPS experiments at the Hungarian Meteorological Service Edit Hágel and Gabriella Szépszó Hungarian.

Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss Quantitative precipitation forecasts in the Alps – first.

COSMO General Meeting Zurich, 2005 Institute of Meteorology and Water Management Warsaw, Poland- 1 - Verification of the LM at IMGW Katarzyna Starosta,

On the impact of the SSO scheme in the COSMO model into the development of a deep cyclone in the Tirrenian sea Case study: April Antonella Morgillo.

Verification Precipitation verification (overestimation): a common view of the behaviour of the LM, aLMo and LAMI Francis Schubiger and Pirmin Kaufmann,

The Sensitivity of a Real-Time Four- Dimensional Data Assimilation Procedure to Weather Research and Forecast Model Simulations: A Case Study Hsiao-ming.

Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss WG 3: Plans for next year COSMO General Meeting, 21 September.

How can LAMEPS * help you to make a better forecast for extreme weather Henrik Feddersen, DMI * LAMEPS =Limited-Area Model Ensemble Prediction.

Towards an object-oriented assessment of high resolution precipitation forecasts Janice L. Bytheway CIRA Council and Fellows Meeting May 6, 2015.

COSMO General Meeting, Offenbach, 7 – 11 Sept Dependance of bias on initial time of forecasts 1 WG1 Overview

We carried out the QPF verification of the three model versions (COSMO-I7, COSMO-7, COSMO-EU) with the following specifications: From January 2006 till.

Latest results in verification over Poland Katarzyna Starosta, Joanna Linkowska Institute of Meteorology and Water Management, Warsaw 9th COSMO General.

Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss PP QPF Workshop 8 March 2007, Langen.

The latest results of verification over Poland Katarzyna Starosta Joanna Linkowska COSMO General Meeting, Cracow September 2008 Institute of Meteorology.

Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss Priority project « Advanced interpretation and verification.

COSMO WG4 Actvities Concentrated mainly on COSMO LEPS  presentation by Andrea Montani The rest of the activities have been absorbed into the advanced.

2.1 Reduction of GHG emissions Energy Efficiency Design Index Tripartite – September 2009 Pierre C. Sames Chairman IACS EG/ENV.

PP QPF Workshop, Langen, 8 March 2007 Simulations of the Piedmont test case: PP QPF WP 3.2 M. Milelli*, E. Oberto*, A. Parodi** *ARPA Piemonte,

Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss Sensitivity studies for the Swiss test cases LM User Seminar,

10° General Meeting Adriano Raspanti - WG5 – VERSUS PL.

Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss Science Plan, PPs, PTs, and more … COSMO General Meeting,

Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss A more reliable COSMO-LEPS F. Fundel, A. Walser, M. A.

U. Damrath, COSMO GM, Athens 2007 Verification of numerical QPF in DWD using radar data - and some traditional verification results for surface weather.

Short Range Ensemble Prediction System Verification over Greece Petroula Louka, Flora Gofa Hellenic National Meteorological Service.

General Meeting Moscow, 6-10 September 2010 High-Resolution verification for Temperature ( in northern Italy) Maria Stefania Tesini COSMO General Meeting.

CEDR TD Management PG2 – Planning the Network Task M3/M8 Status Report for Executive Board 19 June 2008.

Overview of WG5 activities and Conditional Verification Project Adriano Raspanti - WG5 Bucharest, September 2006.

VERIFICATION Highligths by WG5. 2 Outlook Some focus on Temperature with common plots and Conditional Verification Some Fuzzy verification Long trends.

Kain-Fritsch convection scheme: an update Marco Arpagaus MeteoSwiss.

COSMO General Meeting 2008, Krakow Modifications to the COSMO-Model Cumulus Parameterisation Scheme (Tiedtke 1989): Implementation and Testing Dimitrii.

Aim : How do we describe air mass characteristics? Air masses are uniquely classified according to; The nature of the surface in the source region The.

COSMO WG3-WG5 workshop 9 March 2005, Langen. WG3-WG5 workshop, , Langen 1 Agenda for joint WG3-WG5 workshop (1) WP.

WG4 Oct 2006 – Sep 2007 plans COSMO General Meeting, 21 September 2006 Pierre Eckert.

Verification Priority Project ‘Quantitative Precipitation Forecast’ Progress report Task 1.1 and 1.2 Silke Dierer and Francis Schubiger MeteoSwiss.

Deutscher Wetterdienst Long-term trends of precipitation verification results for GME, COSMO-EU and COSMO-DE Ulrich Damrath.

Heavy Rain Climatology of Upper Michigan Jonathan Banitt National Weather Service Marquette MI.

HIC Meeting, 02/25/2010 NWS Hydrologic Forecast Verification Team: Status and Discussion Julie Demargne OHD/HSMB Hydrologic Ensemble Prediction (HEP) group.

REPORTING THROUGH THE EMS

LEPS VERIFICATION ON MAP CASES

QPF sensitivity to Runge-Kutta and Leapfrog core

Hydrometeorological Predication Center

Systematic timing errors in km-scale NWP precipitation forecasts

Ensemble variability in rainfall forecasts of Hurricane Irene (2011)

aLMo from GME and IFS boundary conditions: A comparison

Tuning the horizontal diffusion in the COSMO model

Requirements for microwave inter-calibration

COSMO Priority Project ”Quantitative Precipitation Forecasts”

WG5-Report from Switzerland: Verification of aLMo in the year 2005

Three-category ice scheme

WHAT AFFECTS CLIMATE IN CANADA?

Daniel Leuenberger1, Christian Keil2 and George Craig2

Winter storm forecast at 1-12 h range

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

Reporting 25 April 2018.

Verification Overview

COSMO-LEPS Verification

Health Innovation Prize Submission

Bruce Rolstad Denby FAIRMODE 4th Plenary, Norrkjoping Sweden June 2011

INSTYTUT METEOROLOGII I GOSPODARKI WODNEJ

Some Verification Highlights and Issues in Precipitation Verification

Verification Overview

Pierre Eckert Daniel Cattani MétéoSuisse

Some ideas on verification targeted to the use of the forecasters Pierre Eckert, MeteoSwiss, Geneva Some ideas on the presentation to the forecasters.

Guidelines for future developments Tiziana Paccagnella, ARPA-SIM

Short Range Ensemble Prediction System Verification over Greece

Presentation transcript:

COSMO PP QPF workshop 8 March 2006 Langen Marco Arpagaus

Hello & thanks! Hello to everybody … … and thanks for coming! Special thanks to Silke for the organisation!

Motivation Improve QPF of LM! – Or at least try … How? Understand the problem! Suggest changes. Is it any better? Would things improve in an ,ideal’ world?

Motivation (2) Task 1: Consolidate forecast failure reports and verification findings. Task 2: Provide standardized set of model changes to be used for sensitivity studies. Task 3: Run the sensitivity experiments and draw conclusions concerning possible improvements of the LM QPF performance. Task 4: Run the same sensitivity experiments for moist benchmark cases.

Motivation (3) Task 1.1: Consolidate QPF related problem reports from all COSMO member states. Task 1.2: Consolidate QPF related verification results from all COSMO member states and provide prototype cases reflecting the observed QPF problems. Task 1.3: Condense the lists provided by tasks 1.1 and 1.2 by selecting the typical and most obvious cases illustrating the poor QPF performance of the LM. Task 1.4: Provide LM reference version. Task 1.5: Run test cases with LM reference version to confirm QPF problems. Task 1.6: Reduce list of test cases recommended for sensitivity studies to a maximum of 3 cases for each LM implementation.

Motivation (4) What do we want to achieve at this workshop? Share the results we have obtained so far … … as well as the problems we encountered! Are we on track? A first step towards task 1.3. Outlook to tasks 1.4 – 1.6. Can we profit from the common verification package?

…

First (online …) summary ‘continental’ results overprediction of pp mean in winter overprediction of pp max in summer ‘mediterranean’ results modulation of results depending on upstream conditions? (flow over sea or land)

First (online …) summary (2) pp related to frontal systems (cold & warm) pp related to orography (luv or lee) pp dependency on flow regime combination(s) of the above pp dependency on upstream flow characteristics (e.g., over sea/land)  classify accordingly

Methodology synthesise! look at day 1 pp (& check synoptic situation) consider absolute as well as relative bias; emphasis on area mean rather than single maxima (upscaling of obs!) look at relative contribution of stratiform and convective pp in the model classify as stratiform or convectively dominated cases for Italy (and Switzerland?): try to separate luv/lee effects from land/sea effects

Motivation (4) What do we want to achieve at this workshop? Share the results we have obtained so far … … as well as the problems we encountered! Do we need to re-formulate the task? A first step towards task 1.3. Outlook to tasks 1.4 – 1.6. Can we profit from the common verification package?

A first step towards task 1.3 Agree on common verification measures. Agree on how the cases should be described (deliverable for tasks 1.1 and 1.2). Agree on how the verification material should be provided (deliverable for task 1.3)

A first step towards task 1.3 (2) Common verification measures (COSMO Standard): 6-hourly precipitation sums contingency tables for thresholds 0.1 mm, 2 mm, and 10 mm Bias, POD, FAR (after Wilks 1996) … plus individual scores.

…

Motivation (4) What do we want to achieve at this workshop? Share the results we have obtained so far … … as well as the problems we encountered! Do we need to re-formulate the task? A first step towards task 1.3. Outlook to tasks 1.4 – 1.6. Can we profit from the common verification package?

Outlook to tasks 1.4 – 1.6 Task 1.4: Provide LM reference version. Task 1.1: Consolidate QPF related problem reports from all COSMO member states. Task 1.2: Consolidate QPF related verification results from all COSMO member states and provide prototype cases reflecting the observed QPF problems. Task 1.3: Condense the lists provided by tasks 1.1 and 1.2 by selecting the typical and most obvious cases illustrating the poor QPF performance of the LM. Task 1.4: Provide LM reference version. Task 1.5: Run test cases with LM reference version to confirm QPF problems. Task 1.6: Reduce list of test cases recommended for sensitivity studies to a maximum of 3 cases for each LM implementation.

…

Motivation (4) What do we want to achieve at this workshop? Share the results we have obtained so far … … as well as the problems we encountered! Do we need to re-formulate the task? A first step towards task 1.3. Outlook to tasks 1.4 – 1.6. Can we profit from the common verification package?

…