Beyond the PROFET Juergen Schulze MET Norway. Who's MET Norway?

Slides:



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

Bill Lawrence – DOH. “Hydrologic Model Output Statistics”  Current short term ensembles have proven unreliable, mainly because no hydrologic uncertainty.
“A LPB demonstration project” Celeste Saulo CIMA and Dept. of Atmos. and Ocean Sciences University of Buenos Aires Argentina Christopher Cunningham Center.
Logging In Go to web site:
QPF verification of LAMI F. Grazzini, M. S. Tesini, P. Mezzasalma Forecasting Section ARPA-ServizioIdroMeteorologico Emilia-Romagna
NOAA/NWS Change to WRF 13 June What’s Happening? WRF replaces the eta as the NAM –NAM is the North American Mesoscale “timeslot” or “Model Run”
For the Lesson: Eta Characteristics, Biases, and Usage December 1998 ETA-32 MODEL CHARACTERISTICS.
Paul Fajman NOAA/NWS/MDL September 7,  NDFD ugly string  NDFD Forecasts and encoding  Observations  Assumptions  Output, Scores and Display.
Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss Quantitative precipitation forecasts in the Alps – first.
JEFS Status Report Department of Atmospheric Sciences University of Washington Cliff Mass, Jeff Baars, David Carey JEFS Workshop, August
MOS Performance MOS significantly improves on the skill of model output. National Weather Service verification statistics have shown a narrowing gap between.
Page 1© Crown copyright 2004 Forecasting sea state with a spectral wave model Rogue Waves 2004, Brest Martin Holt 22 October
Water Management Presentations Summary Determine climate and weather extremes that are crucial in resource management and policy making Precipitation extremes.
Chapter 13 – Weather Analysis and Forecasting. The National Weather Service The National Weather Service (NWS) is responsible for forecasts several times.
COSMO General Meeting Zurich, 2005 Institute of Meteorology and Water Management Warsaw, Poland- 1 - Verification of the LM at IMGW Katarzyna Starosta,
CARPE DIEM Centre for Water Resources Research NUID-UCD Contribution to Area-3 Dusseldorf meeting 26th to 28th May 2003.
Web Gridded Document Service (WGDS) The Air Transportation Information Exchange Conference (Featuring AIXM, WXXM, and FIXM) Paul Hershberg Meteorological.
Sterling Chadee Director of Statistics. The processing of the data from the field enumeration began in July 2011 until September All data processors.
Standardised Avalanche Reports Michael Staudinger, LWZ - Salzburg.
Forecasting and Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) NOWcasting Description of atmospheric models Specific Models Types of variables and how to determine.
Warn on Forecast Briefing September 2014 Warn on Forecast Brief for NCEP planning NSSL and GSD September 2014.
1 On the use of radar data to verify mesoscale model precipitation forecasts Martin Goeber and Sean Milton Model Diagnostics and Validation group Numerical.
Threats Database V4 Model Geodatabase Relation Class Creation and Data Population June 25, 2007 Marlene McKinnon, GIS Specialist.
Application of low- resolution ETA model data to provide guidance to high impact weather in complex terrain Juha Kilpinen Finnish Meteorological Institute.
Toward a 4D Cube of the Atmosphere via Data Assimilation Kelvin Droegemeier University of Oklahoma 13 August 2009.
COSMO Annual Meeting September 2005 Zurich (Switzerland) Short-Range Numerical Weather Prediction Programme.
How can LAMEPS * help you to make a better forecast for extreme weather Henrik Feddersen, DMI * LAMEPS =Limited-Area Model Ensemble Prediction.
P. Ñurmi / WWRP QPF Verification - Prague 1 Operational QPF Verification of End Products and NWP Pertti Nurmi Finnish Meteorological Institute.
NOAA’s National Weather Service National Digital Forecast Database: Status Update LeRoy Spayd Chief, Meteorological Services Division Unidata Policy Committee.
June 19, 2007 GRIDDED MOS STARTS WITH POINT (STATION) MOS STARTS WITH POINT (STATION) MOS –Essentially the same MOS that is in text bulletins –Number and.
By John Metz Warning Coordination Meteorologist WFO Corpus Christi.
Verification of the distributions Chiara Marsigli ARPA-SIM - HydroMeteorological Service of Emilia-Romagna Bologna, Italy.
Improving Ensemble QPF in NMC Dr. Dai Kan National Meteorological Center of China (NMC) International Training Course for Weather Forecasters 11/1, 2012,
Latest results in verification over Poland Katarzyna Starosta, Joanna Linkowska Institute of Meteorology and Water Management, Warsaw 9th COSMO General.
Soil moisture generation at ECMWF Gisela Seuffert and Pedro Viterbo European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts ELDAS Interim Data Co-ordination.
Operational ALADIN forecast in Croatian Meteorological and Hydrological Service 26th EWGLAM & 11th SRNWP meetings 4th - 7th October 2004,Oslo, Norway Zoran.
WRF Four-Dimensional Data Assimilation (FDDA) Jimy Dudhia.
Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss Local Probabilistic Weather Predictions for Switzerland.
GFE - OPC Status and Overview TPC/NHC optimized WNOR side for OPC GFE usage – 12.5 km grids – 2 domains - Atlantic and Pacific covering High Seas, Offshores,
Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss WG 4 activities.
Fine-resolution global time slice simulations Philip B. Duffy 1,2,3 Collaborators: G. Bala 1, A. Mirin 1 1 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 2 University.
Ui-Yong Byun, Song-You Hong, Hyeyum Shin Deparment of Atmospheric Science, Yonsei Univ. Ji-Woo Lee, Jae-Ik Song, Sook-Jung Ham, Jwa-Kyum Kim, Hyung-Woo.
Verification tools at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute By Helen Korsmo EGOWS 2004.
Verification of Precipitation Areas Beth Ebert Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre Melbourne, Australia
New Applications for Forecasters EGOWS 2007 Heleen ter Pelkwijk.
Page 1© Crown copyright 2005 Met Office Verification -status Clive Wilson, Presented by Mike Bush at EWGLAM Meeting October 8- 11, 2007.
Deutscher Wetterdienst Preliminary evaluation and verification of the pre-operational COSMO-DE Ensemble Prediction System Susanne Theis Christoph Gebhardt,
Trials of a 1km Version of the Unified Model for Short Range Forecasting of Convective Events Humphrey Lean, Susan Ballard, Peter Clark, Mark Dixon, Zhihong.
10th COSMO General Meeting, Cracow, Poland Verification of COSMOGR Over Greece 10 th COSMO General Meeting Cracow, Poland.
Comparison of Convection-permitting and Convection-parameterizing Ensembles Adam J. Clark – NOAA/NSSL 18 August 2010 DTC Ensemble Testbed (DET) Workshop.
VERIFICATION OF A DOWNSCALING SEQUENCE APPLIED TO MEDIUM RANGE METEOROLOGICAL PREDICTIONS FOR GLOBAL FLOOD PREDICTION Nathalie Voisin, Andy W. Wood and.
2008 AT540 Forecast Contest! Compete against your classmates and TA for bragging rights and a chance to win extra points on your final lab grade! Apply.
1 NWS Digital Services American Meteorological Society Annual Partners Meeting San Diego, CA January 13, 2005 LeRoy Spayd National Weather Service Office.
Seasonal Climate Forecasting for Applied Use in the Western USA Katherine Hegewisch 1, Renaud Barbero 2, John Abatzoglou 1 1 University of Idaho, Department.
Verification of wind gust forecasts Javier Calvo and Gema Morales HIRMAM /ALADIN ASM Utrecht May 11-15, 2009.
Translating Advances in Numerical Weather Prediction into Official NWS Forecasts David P. Ruth Meteorological Development Laboratory Symposium on the 50.
1 Application of MET for the Verification of the NWP Cloud and Precipitation Products using A-Train Satellite Observations Paul A. Kucera, Courtney Weeks,
COSMO_2005 DWD 9 Sep 2005Page 1 (9) COSMO General Meeting Zürich, September 2005 Erdmann Heise German Weather Service Report on Workpackage
UERRA user workshop, Toulouse, 3./4. Feb 2016Cristian Lussana and Michael Borsche 1 Evaluation software tools Cristian Lussana (2) and Michael Borsche.
Operational Verification at HNMS
gWRF Workflow and Input Data Requirements
Murat Uludogan Applications Support Manager
Nathalie Voisin, Andy W. Wood and Dennis P. Lettenmaier
This presentation has been prepared by Vault Intelligence Limited (“Vault") and is intended for off line demonstration, presentation and educational purposes.
Naval Research Laboratory
Challenge: High resolution models need high resolution observations
Mareile Wolff1 with input from Cristian Lussana2 and Thomas Nipen3
National reference metadata and the National Reference Metadata Editor
Verification of Tropical Cyclone Forecasts
Some Verification Highlights and Issues in Precipitation Verification
Presentation transcript:

Beyond the PROFET Juergen Schulze MET Norway

Who's MET Norway?

3 PROFET ?

4 PROFF Field Editor

5

6 Prior to PROFET

7 Text forecast ·50000 Pages of Text forecasts a year ·5-20 people 24/7

8 TV forecast

9 Edited Meteogram ·Offshore forecast ·Subjective Point forecasts

10 Auto Meteogram

11 ICAO Products

12 And then came yr.no

13 yr.no ·Launched in September 2007 ·Free data policy ·5th biggest weather website on the planet ·Interpolation on demand ·9 mio places registered ·Top=6.9 mio unique users/week ·Point forecasts obsolete

14 YR Heatmap

15 PROFET … the intentions Bringing the forecaster into the production chain

16 More intentions Creating products from a single source

17 Even more intentions Forecast consistency by using a single source

18 How PROFET works ·Choosing the “correct” model ·Fixing systematic errors in the model fields

19 Usage – Intended ·Intention to point out dangerous errors

20 Usage – Intended … and real ·Intention to point out dangerous errors ·Used to adapt the model output to fit the forecasters opinion

21 Usage - frequency PARAMETERSUMMERWINTER 1h Precipitation1.9 % 2.8 % Wind0.9 %2.4 %

22 VERIFICATION

23 Equitable Threat Score (ETS) YESNO YESab NOcd ·Threat Score: TS= a / ( a + b + c ) ·Hits expected by chance: E = (a+b) ( a+c ) / n ·ETS = ( a – E ) / ( a + b +c – E )

24 Verification: Precipitation 24h precipitation / summer1h precipitation / summer APPROVED DATASET / DEFAULT MODEL

25 Verification Systematic error Precipitation +30h forecast BIAS [mm / 24h ] SUMMERWINTER ALL CASES DEFAULT MODEL APPROVED DATASET 0.7 EDITED CASES DEFAULT MODEL APPROVED DATASET

26 Verification: comments ·Edited forecasts are more pessimistic than the model ·Forecasters are able to identify situations where the model has considerable errors, but editing the fields is not the optimal way to distribute this knowledge ·Situation has changed since the beginning. The default model has been improved by postprocessing the dataset

27 And the production chain? More and more statistical and parametrisation fixes

28 Temperature? ·High resolution height model (50m horizontal) ·Inhomogeneous ·Deep valleys

29 Temperature? ·High resolution height model (50m horizontal) ·Inhomogeneous ·Deep valleys ·Editing forbidden

30 Precipitation ·Use of prob forecasts by median ·Editing is not WYSIWYG ·Post processing is time cost

31 Wind ·Statistical corrections for mountains and coastlines

32 Chosing the model ? Just two times a day, night shift has not the capacity

33 Single point of production? ·Auto text forecasts – only at high sea. ·Norway is quite Inhomogeneous – auto text did not succeed over land

34 Consistency then? ·Still TV forecast produced by table ·ICAO Products made by hand ·Text forecasts still 50K pages

35 Consistency - yr.no/kart vs yr.no

36 Consistency - yr.no/kart vs yr.no

37 Consistency - yr.no/kart vs yr.no

38 Why stopping right now? ·New Supercomputer – New Model ·AROME 2.5 km High res model over Norway ·Updates 6 or 8 times a day ·High res postprocess chains – time intensive with editing

39 The final reason ·Moving PROFET to AROME would cost a recognizable amount of infrastructural change – due to the implementation of NetCDF as the new grid format

40 What next? The Forecaster is off the production chain again

41 Meteorologen live ·Making direct comments on the situation ·Model/run/grid independent ·Issuing geolocalised warnings, alerts, etc directly into the final product ·Maximum latency of 10 minutes

42 Implementation ·Phase 0: Soon ·Using Common Technology for communication (Twitter/Blog) ·Phase 1: September 2013 ·Adapting existing infrastructure to a set of the new requirements ·Phase 2: Not yet set ·Complete new infrastructure with a postGIS database engine for the geolocalisation