9.8.2005 WWRP_WSN05, Toulouse, 5-9 September 2005 / 1 Pertti Nurmi Juha Kilpinen Sigbritt Näsman Annakaisa Sarkanen ( Finnish Meteorological.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Ensemble Forecasting of High-Impact Weather Richard Swinbank with thanks to various, mainly Met Office, colleagues High-Impact Weather THORPEX follow-on.
Advertisements

Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no LAMEPS – Limited area ensemble forecasting in Norway, using targeted EPS Marit Helene Jensen, Inger-Lise Frogner,
ECMWF User Meeting / 1 Pertti Nurmi Juha Kilpinen Annakaisa Sarkanen ( Finnish Meteorological Institute ) Probabilistic Forecasts.
1 FROST-2014 Verification activities Finnish Meteorological Institute XXII Olympic Winter Games Feb - Mar 2014 Pertti Nurmi WMO WWRP.
Louisville, KY August 4, 2009 Flash Flood Frank Pereira NOAA/NWS/NCEP/Hydrometeorological Prediction Center.
Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss Improving COSMO-LEPS forecasts of extreme events with.
Forecasting Uncertainty Related to Ramps of Wind Power Production
Gridded OCF Probabilistic Forecasting For Australia For more information please contact © Commonwealth of Australia 2011 Shaun Cooper.
2012: Hurricane Sandy 125 dead, 60+ billion dollars damage.
EMS ECAM 13 september 2011 GlamEps: Current and future use in operational forecasting at KNMI Adrie Huiskamp.
10/05/041 Utilisation of satellite data in the verification of HIRLAM cloud forecasts Christoph Zingerle and Pertti Nurmi.
Integration Tide Gauge and Satellite Altimetry for Storm Surge and Sea Level change prediction. Ole B. Andersen and Y. Cheng (DTU, Denmark) Xiaoli Deng,
Performance of the MOGREPS Regional Ensemble
Climatology and Predictability of Cool-Season High Wind Events in the New York City Metropolitan and Surrounding Area Michael Layer School of Marine and.
CARPE DIEM Centre for Water Resources Research NUID-UCD Contribution to Area-3 Dusseldorf meeting 26th to 28th May 2003.
ELDAS activities at SMHI/Rossby Centre – 2nd Progress Meeting L. Phil Graham Daniel Michelson Jonas Olsson Åsa Granström Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological.
Application of low- resolution ETA model data to provide guidance to high impact weather in complex terrain Juha Kilpinen Finnish Meteorological Institute.
Short-Range Ensemble Prediction System at INM José A. García-Moya & Carlos Santos SMNT – INM COSMO Meeting Zurich, September 2005.
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.
EU COST Action 722: The Understanding of Fog Structure, Development and Forecasting Presented on behalf of the 13 participant countries 1. Background.
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.
The Framework of the WMO/WWRP FROST-2014 Forecast Verification Setup and Activities The Framework of the WMO/WWRP FROST-2014 Forecast.
Use of sea level observations in DMIs storm surge model Jacob L. Høyer, Weiwei Fu, Kristine S. Madsen & Lars Jonasson Center for Ocean and Ice, Danish.
LAPS __________________________________________ Analysis and nowcasting system for Finland/Scandinavia Finnish Meteorological Institute Erik Gregow.
Météo-France / CNRM – T. Bergot 1) Introduction 2) The methodology of the inter-comparison 3) Phase 1 : cases study Inter-comparison of numerical models.
Latest results in verification over Poland Katarzyna Starosta, Joanna Linkowska Institute of Meteorology and Water Management, Warsaw 9th COSMO General.
Use of Dynamical Adaptation in Research Impact Studies Second Workshop on Statistical and Dynamical Adaptation May 2003, Vienna, Austria Martina.
END-USER FOCUSED VERIFICATION OF PRECIPITATION NOWCASTS DURING THE SOCHI 2014 WINTER OLYMPICS Larisa Nikitina 1, Suleiman Mostmandy 2, Pertti Nurmi (presenter)
Requirements from KENDA on the verification NetCDF feedback files: -produced by analysis system (LETKF) and ‘stat’ utility ((to.
Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss Accounting for Change: Local wind forecasts from the high-
Probabilistic Forecasting. pdfs and Histograms Probability density functions (pdfs) are unobservable. They can only be estimated. They tell us the density,
OWEMES 2006, Civitavecchia, Italy Accuracy of Short-Term Predictions for 25 GW Offshore Wind Power in Germany Jens Tambke, L. v. Bremen, N. Saleck, U.
Short-Range Ensemble Prediction System at INM José A. García-Moya SMNT – INM 27th EWGLAM & 12th SRNWP Meetings Ljubljana, October 2005.
Operational ALADIN forecast in Croatian Meteorological and Hydrological Service 26th EWGLAM & 11th SRNWP meetings 4th - 7th October 2004,Oslo, Norway Zoran.
Scatterometers at KNMI; Towards Increased Resolution Hans Bonekamp Marcos Portabella Isabel.
1 Results from Winter Storm Reconnaissance Program 2008 Yucheng SongIMSG/EMC/NCEP Zoltan TothEMC/NCEP/NWS Sharan MajumdarUniv. of Miami Mark ShirleyNCO/NCEP/NWS.
Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss Local Probabilistic Weather Predictions for Switzerland.
WP 3: DATA ASSIMILATION SMHI/FMI Status report 3rd CARPE DIEM meeting, University of Essex, Colchester, 9-10 January 2003 Structure SMHI/FMI plans for.
EMS 2013 (Reading UK) Verification techniques for high resolution NWP precipitation forecasts Emiel van der Plas Kees Kok Maurice.
11th EMS & 10th ECAM Berlin, Deutschland The influence of the new ECMWF Ensemble Prediction System resolution on wind power forecast accuracy and uncertainty.
Paper WSN05 Toulouse 5-9 September, 2005 VERIFICATION OF OPERATIONAL THUNDERSTORM NOWCASTS E. Ebert, T. Keenan, J. Bally and S. Dance Bureau of.
Nathalie Voisin 1, Florian Pappenberger 2, Dennis Lettenmaier 1, Roberto Buizza 2, and John Schaake 3 1 University of Washington 2 ECMWF 3 National Weather.
NWP models. Strengths and weaknesses. Morten Køltzow, met.no NOMEK
COSMO General Meeting Zurich, 2005 Institute of Meteorology and Water Management Warsaw, Poland- 1 - Simple Kalman filter – a “smoking gun” of shortages.
Verification of ensemble precipitation forecasts using the TIGGE dataset Laurence J. Wilson Environment Canada Anna Ghelli ECMWF GIFS-TIGGE Meeting, Feb.
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.
Proposed THORPEX/HEPEX Hydrologic Ensemble Project (THEPS) Presentation for 3 rd THORPEX Science Symposium September 14-18, 2009 Prepared by John Schaake,
10th COSMO General Meeting, Cracow, Poland Verification of COSMOGR Over Greece 10 th COSMO General Meeting Cracow, Poland.
VERIFICATION OF A DOWNSCALING SEQUENCE APPLIED TO MEDIUM RANGE METEOROLOGICAL PREDICTIONS FOR GLOBAL FLOOD PREDICTION Nathalie Voisin, Andy W. Wood and.
Parameterization of the Planetary Boundary Layer -NWP guidance Thor Erik Nordeng and Morten Køltzow NOMEK 2010 Oslo 19. – 23. April 2010.
Predicting Intense Precipitation Using Upscaled, High-Resolution Ensemble Forecasts Henrik Feddersen, DMI.
HIRLAM coupled to the ocean wave model WAM. Verification and improvements in forecast skill. Morten Ødegaard Køltzow, Øyvind Sætra and Ana Carrasco. The.
Regional Re-analyses of Observations, Ensembles and Uncertainties of Climate information Per Undén Coordinator UERRA SMHI.
Snow modelling using the Surfex-Crocus snow scheme Dagrun Vikhamar-Schuler and Karsten Müller 1 1 Norwegian Water Ressources and Energy Directorate (NVE)
Hirlam-Aladin All Staff Meeting Jose A. Garcia-Moya. AEMET. Spain. On behalf of Carlos Santos, Anna Ghelli (ECMWF) & Imanol Guerrero ECMWF & AEMET.
Improving Numerical Weather Prediction Using Analog Ensemble Presentation by: Mehdi Shahriari Advisor: Guido Cervone.
Encast Global forecasting.
LEPS VERIFICATION ON MAP CASES
Overview of Deterministic Computer Models
S.Alessandrini, S.Sperati, G.Decimi,
TI measurement techniques for pulsed Lidars – the Current Status
Nathalie Voisin, Andy W. Wood and Dennis P. Lettenmaier
Finnish Meteorological Institute
Comparison of different combinations of ensemble-based and variational data assimilation approaches for deterministic NWP Mark Buehner Data Assimilation.
Nowcast guidance of afternoon convection initiation for Taiwan
EFnet: an added value of multi-model simulation
Verification of Tropical Cyclone Forecasts
Wind Energy Potential in Europe: 2020 – 2030
Short Range Ensemble Prediction System Verification over Greece
Presentation transcript:

WWRP_WSN05, Toulouse, 5-9 September 2005 / 1 Pertti Nurmi Juha Kilpinen Sigbritt Näsman Annakaisa Sarkanen ( Finnish Meteorological Institute ) Probabilistic Forecasts and Their Verification as Decision-Making Tools for Warnings against Near-Gale Force Winds WSN05: WWRP Symposium on Nowcasting and Very Short Range Forecasting Toulouse, 5-9 September 2005

WWRP_WSN05, Toulouse, 5-9 September 2005 / 2 Develop warning criteria / Guidance methods to forecast probability of near-gale force winds in the Baltic  Joint Scandinavian research undertaking –e.g. Finland and Sweden issue near-gale & storm force wind warnings for same areas using different criteria  Homogenize ! 6 Finnish coastal stations  c stations from Sweden, Denmark, Norway Probabilistic vs. deterministic approach HIRLAM  ECMWF model input Different calibration methods, e.g. Kalman filtering  Goal: Common Scandinavian operational warning practice Introduction:

WWRP_WSN05, Toulouse, 5-9 September 2005 / 3 HIRLAM (limited area model) RCR ~ 22 km version MBE ~ 9 km version Data coverage: –  ~ 140 cases ECMWF Applied as reference, only Data interpolated to 0.5 o *0.5 o  Nearest grid point Data coverage: –  ~ 210 cases Forecast lead time: +6 hrs (and beyond  ECAM paper) Forecasts: wind speed at 10m Observations: 10 minute mean wind speed Data:

WWRP_WSN05, Toulouse, 5-9 September 2005 / 4 Potential problems: with height of instrumentation ? with observing site surroundings and obstacles ? –with the coast ? –with nearby islands ? –with barriers ? –with installations ? with low-level stability ? NE “Statistical correction” scheme available at FMI

WWRP_WSN05, Toulouse, 5-9 September 2005 / 5 (m) Height of the instrumentation - Large filled dots: 6 Finnish stations being used - Yellow dot: Station_981; Results presented here

WWRP_WSN05, Toulouse, 5-9 September 2005 / 6 32 m 15,5 m/s 10 m 15 Wind speed dependence: Logarithmic wind profile 14 m/s Bogskär Unstable Neutral Stable threshold

WWRP_WSN05, Toulouse, 5-9 September 2005 / 7 Methods for producing probabilistic forecasts 1 : Deterministic forecasts: Error distribution of original sample (~140 cases) Approximation of the error distribution with a Gaussian fit ( ,  ):  ”Dressing” method 1.ECMWF EPS (51 members)  P (wind speed) > 14 m/s 2.Kalman filtering Various approaches  No details given here 3.Deterministic forecast, “dressed” with “a posteriori” description of the observed error distribution of the past, dependent sample  P (wind speed) > 14 m/s “Simplistic reference” !

WWRP_WSN05, Toulouse, 5-9 September 2005 / 8 Methods for producing probabilistic forecasts 2 : 4.Deterministic forecast, adjusted with a Gaussian fit to model forecasted stability ( Temperature forecasts from 2 adjacent model levels )  P (wind speed) > 14 m/s  “Stability” method ~Scheme used at SMHI (H. Hultberg) 5.“Uncertainty area” method (aka ”Neighborhood method”) (aka ”Probabilistic upscaling”)  Spatial (Fig.) and/or temporal neighboring grid points Size of uncertainty area ? Size of time window ? c “members”  RCR: ± 3 points ~ 150*150 km 2  MBE: ± 6 points ~ 120*120 km 2

WWRP_WSN05, Toulouse, 5-9 September 2005 / 9 Relative Operating Characteristic To determine the ability of a forecasting system to discriminate between situations when a signal is present (here, occurrence of near-gale) from no-signal cases (“noise”) To test model performance ( H vs. F ) relative to a given probability threshold Applicable for probability forecasts and also for categorical deterministic forecasts  Allows for their comparison  “R” statistical package used for ROC computation/presentation Probabilistic FCs: ROC

WWRP_WSN05, Toulouse, 5-9 September 2005 / 10 ROC A = 0.82 ROC A fit = 0.91 ROC curve/area; Station_981; +6 hrs; No. of events ~25/130 ROC A = 0.93 ROC A fit = 0.91 ”Simple reference” (dep. sample): HIR_MBE_”Dressing” HIR_MBE_”Uncertainty area” ~ 120 * 120 km

WWRP_WSN05, Toulouse, 5-9 September 2005 / 11 ROC A = 0.93 ROC A fit = 0.91 ROC curve/area; Station_981; +6 hrs; No. of events ~25/130 ROC A = 0.84 ROC A fit = 0.82 HIR_MBE_”Stability” ”Simple reference” (dep. sample): HIR_MBE_”Dressing”

WWRP_WSN05, Toulouse, 5-9 September 2005 / 12 Comparison of methods; Station_981; +6 hrs

WWRP_WSN05, Toulouse, 5-9 September 2005 / 13 We’ve only scratched the (sea) surface  Need (much) more experimentation with various methods  Different methods for different time/space scales ?  Apply to data of other Scandinavian counterparts (here, only single station) Scores depend on station properties (e.g. observation height; Not dealt with here)  (Statistical) adjustment of original observations required !  Finland has an operational scheme for this ! “Dressing” of dependent sample: quality level hard to reach “Uncertainty area” size: a tricky issue Higher resolution HIRLAM version produces higher scores  Not necessarily a trivial result !  Reach the goal, i.e. common operational practice !!! Conclusions  Future: