1. Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss WG4 activities Пьер Экер MeteoSwiss, Geneva

2. 2 COSMO General meeting ¦ Moscow, September 2010 Pierre.Eckert[at]meteoswiss.ch Topics COSMO LEPS Stratified verification and guidelines for forecasters Sotchi Olympic games (at least some aspects of the meteorological side) 2010 – 2011 Plans

3. Present status and future plans of the COSMO-LEPS system Andrea Montani, D. Cesari, T. Diomede, C. Marsigli, T. Paccagnella ARPA-SIMC HydroMeteoClimate Regional Service of Emilia-Romagna, Bologna, Italy COSMO Genreal meeting Moscow

4. Dim 2 Initial conditions Dim 1 Dim 2 Possible evolution scenarios Dim 1 Initial conditions ensemble size reduction Cluster members chosen as representative members (RMs) LAM integrations driven by RMs LAM scenario COSMO-LEPS methodology

5. Upgrades during the “COSMO year” 16 November 2009: – archive of large-scale precipitation (62.2) for both COSMO-LEPS members and LM-DET; 30 November 2009: – implementation of COSMO-LEPS at 7 km (new domain, new perturbations (in types and values), lsso=.true., lforest=.true. ); – upgrade of COSMO to model version 4.8; 12 July 2010: – upgrade of INT2LM to model version 1.12; – upgrade of COSMO to model version 4.12.

6. Outline Introduction:  migration to the 7-km system. COSMO-LEPS 10 km (old) COSMO-LEPS 7 km (new)

7. Old system  x = 10 km  z = 40 ML  t = 90 s ngp = 306x258x40 = 3.157.920 fcst range = 132h initial conditions: interpolated from EPS members perturbations: type of convection scheme; tur_len; pat_len. Implementation of COSMO-LEPS at 7 km New system (COSMO-LEPS_7)  x = 7 km  z = 40 ML  t = 60 s ngp = 511x415x40 = 8.482.600 fcst range = 132h initial conditions: interpolated from EPS members merged with surface and soil-layer fields produced at DWD for COSMO-EU perturbations: type of convection scheme; tur_len; pat_len; crsmin; rat_sea; rlam_heat. COSMO-LEPS_7 tested from May to November 2009 (no merging yet) - to improve the forecast of near-surface parameters - to keep an “advantage” vs ECMWF EPS (running at ̴ 25 km) Why?

8. COSMO-LEPS_10 (Old) vs COSMO-LEPS_7 (New) Deterministic verification of T2M ensemble mean  Variable: 2-metre temperature.  Period: from June to November 2009.  Forecast ranges: fc+6h, fc+12h, …, fc+132h.  Scores: root-mean-square error, bias. Probabilistic verification of 12-hour cumulated precipitation  Variable:12h cumulated precipitation (18-06, 06-18 UTC).  Period: from June to November 2009.  Forecast ranges: fc 6-18h, fc 18-30h, …, fc 114-126h.  Scores: ROC area, BSS, RPSS, Outliers.  Thresholds: 1, 5, 10, 15, 25, 50 mm/12h.  Observations: SYNOP reports over either MAP D-PHASE region (450 reports/day) or the FULL-DOMAIN (1400 reports/day).  Method: nearest grid point; no-weighted fcst.

9. Bias and rmse of T2M Ensemble Mean  Consider bias and rmse for 3 months (24/5  24/8/2009) over MAPDOM ( ∼ 450 synop).  T2m forecasts are corrected with height.  Bias closer to zero and lower rmse for the 7-km suite.  Improvement is not “massive”, but detectable for all forecast ranges, especially for day-time verification.  Similar results over MAPDOM and over FULLDOM (not shown).  The signal is stable (same scores also for 6-month verification). ---- OLD rmse (10 km) ---- NEW rmse (7 km) —— OLD bias (10 km) —— NEW bias (7 km)

10. ROC area, BSS for 12-hour tp  Consider the event “10 mm of precipitation in 12 hours” for ROC area and BSS (from Jun to Nov 2009).  Better results for the 7-km suite, both for ROC area and BSS values.  The impact is more evident for BSS.  Reduction of 12-h cycle in 7-km runs.  The improvement is detectable for all forecast ranges and for both MAPDOM and FULLDOM. ROC area (both FULLDOM and MAPDOM)BSS (both FULLDOM and MAPDOM)

11. RPSS, OUTL for 12-hour tp  Consider scores not-dependent on one single threshold (from Jun to Nov 2009).  Better results for the 7-km suite in terms of RPSS.  The improvement is detectable for all forecast ranges and for both MAPDOM and FULLDOM.  The Percentage of outliers is only slightly reduced in the 7-km suite (solid lines), but the gap is very small.  The 7-km system has a positive impact in the reduction of the outliers BELOW THE MINIMUM for the MAPDOM (the same holds for FULLDOM, although not shown). % of outliers (only MAPDOM)RPSS (both FULLDOM and MAPDOM) COSMO-LEPS_7 implemented operationally on 1 December 2009

12. –SYNOP on the GTS Time-series verification of COSMO-LEPS Main features: variable: 12h cumulated precip (18-06, 06-18 UTC); period : from Dec 2002 to Jul 2010; PHASE region: 43-50N, 2-18E (MAP D-PHASE area); method: nearest grid point; no-weighted fcst; obs: synop reports (about 470 stations/day); fcst ranges: 6-18h, 18-30h, …, 102-114h, 114-126h; thresholds: 1, 5, 10, 15, 25, 50 mm/12h; system: COSMO-LEPS; scores: ROC area, BSS, RPSS, Outliers, … both monthly and seasonal scores were computed

13. Time series of ROC area  Area under the curve in the HIT rate vs FAR diagram; the higher, the better …  Valuable forecast systems have ROC area values > 0.6.  Improvement of skill detectable for all thresholds along the years.  Poor performance of the system in Spring and Summer 2006 (both particularly dry), despite system upgrades.  Best performance in 2007 during DOP (D-PHASE Operation Period).  fc 30-42h: ROC area above 0.8 since mid-2007 and good scores in 2010.  fc 78-90h: ROC area ALSO above 0.8 in the last 10 months.

14. Main results Time-series verification scores. It is difficult to disentangle improvements related to COSMO-LEPS upgrades from those due to better EPS boundaries; nevertheless, positive trends can be identified :  increase in BSS and ROC area scores  reduction in outliers percentages;  system upgrades of Dec 2007 brought small but positive impact;  the increase in horizontal resolution had a clear positive impact last winter (also ECMWF EPS did well anyway …). Implementation of COSMO-LEPS_7km. The new system was tested in parallel suite for 6 months:  higher BSS and ROC area values for the probabilistic prediction of 12-h precipitation with respect to the operational one,  lower T2M errors of the ensemble mean,  positive impact of the introduction of the new perturbations. COSMO-LEPS_7km was implemented on 1 December 2009.

15. 15 COSMO-LEPS cloud problem | COSMO GM 2010 André Walser (andre.walser@meteoswiss.ch) Cloudiness problem in the alpine region COSMO-LEPS median COSMO-7 Observations  many members with a too small diurnal cycle in 2m temperature  COSMO-LEPS predicts clearly more clouds than COSMO-7  large spread in deterministic case

16. 16 COSMO-LEPS cloud problem | COSMO GM 2010 André Walser (andre.walser@meteoswiss.ch) Reasons Cloud problem in COSMO-LEPS seems to be caused by Kain-Fritsch together with a too moist boundary layer Has dramatic impact on 2m temperature Too moist boundary layer is caused by a too moist soil  Soil merge (COSMO-EU or assimilation cycle) should be introduced as soon as possible

17. COSMO-LEPS_7km: –use the soil moisture analysis fields provided by DWD; –save COSMO-LEPS output files on model levels (up to fc+48h) for further downscaling; –test modifications of clustering methodologies: always select control runs by ECMWF EPS; consider shorter forecast ranges for clustering intervals (48-72h, 72-96h); –follow the outcome of ECMWF TAC-subgroup on BC project  possible modifications of the COSMO-LEPS suite; COSMO-LEPS for TIGGE-LAM: –develop coding, post-processing and archiving of COSMO-LEPS output files in GRIB2 format (test Fieldextra); –assistance to users. Future plans (1)

18. Future plans (2) Support calibration and verification. Carry on collaboration within research project (e.g. SAFEWIND, IMPRINTS). ECMWF Seminars 2011: tentative dates are 12-15 September 2011 ….. No more overlap with COSMO Meeting, please!

19. 19 Report on WG4 June 2010 workshop ¦ COSMO General Meeting September 2010 Pierre.Eckert[at]meteoswiss.ch Stratified verification by weather classes and guidelines for forecasters Workshop June 2010 Selected (by myself) persons from classification, verification and forecasting world Goals Classification From classification to stratified verification From stratified verification to guidelines Forecaster’s feedback

20. 20 Report on WG4 June 2010 workshop ¦ COSMO General Meeting September 2010 Pierre.Eckert[at]meteoswiss.ch Classification

21. 21 COST 733 – Weather type classifications in Europe and at MeteoSwiss | COSMO workshop, Geneva, 25 June 2010 Reinhard Schiemann, Christoph Frei, Mark Liniger, Christof Appenzeller COST733 12 domains data: ERA40, SLP number of types fixed: 9, 18, 27  22 methods, 73 classifications (daily, 1958-2001) 12 domains data: ERA40, SLP number of types fixed: 9, 18, 27  22 methods, 73 classifications (daily, 1958-2001)

22. 22 COST 733 – Weather type classifications in Europe and at MeteoSwiss | COSMO workshop, Geneva, 25 June 2010 Reinhard Schiemann, Christoph Frei, Mark Liniger, Christof Appenzeller Classes and correlation to precipitation

23. COSMO Workshop on Stratified Verification and Guidelines Geneva 15-16 June 2010 Example of Application Mean Temperature January NEAADSWAAW

24. 24 COST 733 – Weather type classifications in Europe and at MeteoSwiss | COSMO workshop, Geneva, 25 June 2010 Reinhard Schiemann, Christoph Frei, Mark Liniger, Christof Appenzeller Remaining 2 candidates pre-defined typesderived types subjectively def. types Rules/ Thresholds PCA (variants) Leader Algorithm Optimisation 3 3 6 22 55 GWT 10,18,26 PCACA 9,18,27 COST 733 catalogue candidates based on entirely diffent classification methods

25. 25 COST 733 – Weather type classifications in Europe and at MeteoSwiss | COSMO workshop, Geneva, 25 June 2010 Reinhard Schiemann, Christoph Frei, Mark Liniger, Christof Appenzeller Requested properties of classification methods with respect to verification of models Promote automated classification Stability Easier to apply on forecasted fields For verification purposes we are more interested in differentiating weather classes where the models have difficulties from those where it performs well. Therefore, we should evaluate the weather type classifications again with the target measure "model skill" instead of precipitation.

26. 26 Report on WG4 June 2010 workshop ¦ COSMO General Meeting September 2010 Pierre.Eckert[at]meteoswiss.ch Stratified verification By season, by weather class or by type of event. Parameters  Temperature, dew point, precipitation, cloudiness, wind speed and gusts. Scores  ME, STD, POD, FAR, ETS, contingency tables, fuzzy scores or fields.  Some results are available  Possible in VERSUS

27. 27 Report on WG4 June 2010 workshop ¦ COSMO General Meeting September 2010 Pierre.Eckert[at]meteoswiss.ch Presentation Class 1, summer a b c d e f g -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Stations / regions Bias Class 1, summer Synthetic map!

28. 28 Report on WG4 June 2010 workshop ¦ COSMO General Meeting September 2010 Pierre.Eckert[at]meteoswiss.ch Recommendations for guidelines The guidelines should be self-contained. They can look like a cookbook, for instance for the use of a parameter or for the treatment of a specific situation. A light version can be at the disposal of the forecasted on duty (usually under time stress) when a longer version can be studied offline. This longer version can also be used as an education tool for newcomers. The shorter version can also be implemented as a seasonal factsheet. The seasonal factsheets should include (if possible) the expected changes of the current model version with respect to version which was running in the past season. Generally speaking the guidelines should be short, attractive and meaningful.

29. 29 Report on WG4 June 2010 workshop ¦ COSMO General Meeting September 2010 Pierre.Eckert[at]meteoswiss.ch Forecasters feedback Forecaster feedback should be organized either by a mailbox, a forum or regular discussions. At the end of each season a debriefing can be organized and a synthesis written. This can form a good base to the following corresponding season.

30. Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss Support for the 2014 Olympic Games in Sotchi

31. 31  Enhanced observational network;  Nowcasting tools;  Regional data assimilation;  High-resolution NWP models and EPS;  Meso-scale verification system;  Means of NWP output interpretation and delivery (new parameters and products, visualization etc); postprocessing;  Training Primary meteorological needs for Sochi-2014:

32. 32 Sotchi Olympic Games, General Introduction ¦ COSMO General Meeting September 2010 Pierre.Eckert[at]meteoswiss.ch What can be done? Ambitious 0.5 – 1km scale model 2 km EPS Possible through international collaboration (projects, demonstration projects,…). Preferably COSMO. Recognised methods on present models Local adaptation (MOS, blending, 1d-2d models,…) Classification, analogs, climatology,… Relocate a version of COSMO LEPS Forecasters guidelines Communication with deciding partners

33. 33 Sotchi Olympic Games, General Introduction ¦ COSMO General Meeting September 2010 Pierre.Eckert[at]meteoswiss.ch Methods used at Torino 2006

34. 34 Methods used at Vacouver 2010 ATMOS MODEL 3D INTEGRATION External Land Surface Model With horizontal resolution as high as that of surface databases (e.g., 100 m) ATMOSPHERIC FORCING at FIRST ATMOS. MODEL LEVEL (T, q, U, V) 2D INTEGRATION Computational cost of off-line surface modeling system is much less than an integration of the atmospheric model ATMOSPHERIC FORCING at SURFACE (RADIATION and PRECIPITATION) LOW-RES HIGH-RES SLIDE 2

35. 35 Applications to the 2010 Vancouver Games: Two surface systems: “2D” and “Point” 1400 x 1800 computational grid (100-m grid size) USA VAN Whistler Blackcomb Callaghan VANCOUVER Cypress Bowl SLIDE 3

36. 36 Examples of Meteograms and “Surfacegrams” SLIDE 12

37. 37 Sotchi Olympic Games, General Introduction ¦ COSMO General Meeting September 2010 Pierre.Eckert[at]meteoswiss.ch 2010-2011 plans Continue activity on stratified verification and guidelines Interest from CH, D, I, GR, PO, RU (…) Postprocessing Development of MOS on COSMO (CH) Other postprocessing: aviation,… Fieldextra Working packages for Sotchi 2014 Exchange of methods and concepts with other consortia (SRNWP-ET link with applications)

38. 38 COSMO General meeting ¦ Moscow, September 2010 Pierre.Eckert[at]meteoswiss.ch Это конец презентации Благодарю вас за внимание

39. 39 Report on WG4 June 2010 workshop ¦ COSMO General Meeting September 2010 Pierre.Eckert[at]meteoswiss.ch Publicity Announcement for the http://www.smr.arpa.emr.it/srnwp