Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss Final PP QPF meeting COSMO General Meeting, 18 September 2007, Athens

2 Results MeteoSwiss S. Dierer Most of the work done - what’s left to do? missing information evaluation procedure: some cases can’t be evaluated by the average value – better measure? final report: next steps publication

3 Results MeteoSwiss S. Dierer Outline Overview of test cases presented by every group original error was there a study with positive impact, which study? Evaluation procedure Missing information Next steps

4 Results MeteoSwiss S. Dierer Results of test cases kind of forecast error? => suitable way for verification? which studies significantly improved the forecast? original sensitivity studies cross experiments did any of the studies solve the problem?

5 Results MeteoSwiss S. Dierer Evaluation procedure… Some model errors are not indicated by differences in area average values thus, using the bias of area average of precipitation is not the suitable measure for these cases is there another suitable and simple measure? Smaller evaluation region evaluating maximum values doesn’t help in many cases because maximum values are also similar cases affected by this are: 11, 19, 20 (and others) Should we discuss maximum values?

6 Results MeteoSwiss S. Dierer Precipitation bias of reference version

7 Results MeteoSwiss S. Dierer Missing information… For those who performed simulations with GME analysis: did any of the studies show that initial and boundary conditions might have been a problem? Romania: increased/decreased soil moisture and initial humidity – did you check again? Latitude/longitude values for evaluation region, area average or average over single stations? Poland, Romania, ARPA-ER, ARPA-P, Germany, Greece and Switzerland Seasonal evaluation results: Romania, Greece

8 Results MeteoSwiss S. Dierer Next steps 15 th October (maybe earlier): complete the draft of final report with today’s results and send this version to all of you for review 5 th November: deadline review 21 th November Revised version based on your comments Distributed again – short response time 28 th November Final review finished Submission + distribution to COSMO members as final report (additional appendix with more detailed information) ?????

9 Results MeteoSwiss S. Dierer Publication publication based on final report results need to be more structured: two main errors: stratiform overestimation, convective underestimation cross experiments mainly designed for stratiform overestimation additional cross experiments for convective underestimation? concentrate on stratiform overestimation? who’s interested in publishing the results? Who should be author?

10 Results MeteoSwiss S. Dierer Bias of reference run and cross experiments DWD M-SwissItalyHNMSIMGWNMA

11 Results MeteoSwiss S. Dierer Results of test cases DATEINSITUTIONOverestimation (+)/underestimation (-) Stratiform (strat)/convective(con) Studies improving the results DWD+strat DWD+strat DWD+Strat+conv DWD-conv MeteoSwiss+strat MeteoSwiss+strat MeteoSwiss+conv MeteoSwiss+strat ARPA-P-conv ARPA-ER+strat CIRA-CMCC-conv CIRA-CMCC-conv NMA-strat NMA-strat NMA-Strat+conv HNMS-conv HNMS-Strat+conv HNMS-strat IMGW-strat IMGW0strat IMGW+strat IMGW+strat NMA+strat+conv NMA+strat NMA-strat

12 Results MeteoSwiss S. Dierer Missing information… Poland: seasonal,domain,best studies Romania: ARPA ER: seasonal,domain,best studies Greece: domain ARPA-P: seasonal, domain, best studies Germany: seasonal,domain,best studies Switzerland: seasonal,domain,best studies