1 / 82

Highlights from Operational Verification in COSMO

Highlights from Operational Verification in COSMO. Authors: ALL Presented by Adriano Raspanti. WG5 COSMO General Meeting, Rome 2011. Quick look to some common plots Intercomparison between driving model and high resolution Conditional verification Fuzzy verification

cadman-bass
Download Presentation

Highlights from Operational Verification in COSMO

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HighlightsfromOperationalVerification in COSMO Authors: ALL Presented by Adriano Raspanti WG5 COSMO General Meeting, Rome 2011

  2. Quick look to some common plots • Intercomparison between driving model and high resolution • Conditional verification • Fuzzy verification • Long term trends (mainly precipitation) WG5 COSMO General Meeting, Rome 2011

  3. TEMPERATURE AT 2 M - SON 2010 - MAM 2011

  4. MEAN SEA LEVEL PRESSURE - SON 2010 – MAM 2011

  5. BC from GME CEU,CPL,CRU !!! BC from IFS C7,CI7,CGR !!! BC from GME ??? BC from IFS ???

  6. WIND SPEED AT 10 M - SON 2010 - MAM 2011

  7. TOTAL CLOUD COVER - SON 2010 - MAM 2011

  8. Quick look to some common plots • Intercomparison between driving model and high resolution • Conditional verification • Fuzzy verification • Long term trends (mainly precipitation) WG5 COSMO General Meeting, Rome 2011

  9. COSMOME vs ECMWF Temperature DJF SON MAM JJA

  10. COSMOME vs ECMWF Wind Speed DJF SON MAM JJA

  11. COSMOI7 vs ECMWF Temperature DJF SON MAM JJA

  12. COSMOI7 vs ECMWF Wind Speed DJF SON MAM JJA

  13. TemperatureCOSMOME vs COSMOIT DJF SON MAM JJA

  14. Wind SpeedCOSMOME vs COSMOIT DJF SON MAM JJA

  15. Temp 2m - 7km vs 3km Fall Winter Spring Summer Underestimation of Temp, mainly in winter. error ~2o, worse with 7km by ~0.5o Clear diurnal cycle WG5 COSMO General Meeting, Rome 2011

  16. Wind Speed - 7km vs 3km Fall Winter Spring Summer Overestimation of wind (DJF,SON) 2-2.5deg bias similar attitude of 2 models WG5 COSMO General Meeting, Rome 2011

  17. Precipitation (12h-sums +36 to +48h):Spring 2011 over Switzerland (SYNOP‘s)frequency bias: COSMO-7 & IFS observed frequency V. Stauch

  18. Precipitation (12h-sums +12 to +24h):Spring 2011 over Switzerland (SYNOP‘s)COSMO-7 & COSMO-2 for both models mean over 9 gridpoints for each station V. Stauch

  19. T2m COSMO-RU 2.2 and 7 km, Sochi, station Krasnaya Polyana 2.2 km – Less overestimating 7 km

  20. T2m in COSMO-RU 7 and 2.2 km, Krasnaya Polyana Method: 1) nearest point 3D optimized ! COSMO-RU 2.2 km is better than COSMO-RU 7 km for Krasnaya Polyana

  21. T2m in COSMO-RU 7 and 2.2 km, Moscow Method: 1) nearest point 3D optimized ! COSMO-RU 2.2 km RMSE is even slightly higher than that of COSMO-RU 7 km for Moscow

  22. PERFORMANCE DIAGRAM Period March 2010 - April 2011

  23. 50% of points (median) > 1 mm/24h

  24. 50% of points (median) > 5 mm/24h

  25. 50% of points (median) > 10 mm/24h

  26. 50% of points (median) > 20 mm/24h

  27. 1 Point (maximum) > 1 mm/24h

  28. 1 Point (maximum) > 5 mm/24h

  29. 1 Point (maximum) > 10 mm/24h

  30. 1 Point (maximum) > 20 mm/24h

  31. 50% of points (median) > 1 mm/24h & Maximum > 25 mm/24h

  32. 50% of points (median) > 1 mm/24h & Maximum > 50 mm/24h

  33. 50% of points (median) > 1 mm/24h & Maximum > 75 mm/24h

  34. 50% of points (median) > 1 mm/24h & Maximum > 100 mm/24h

  35. 50% of points (median) > 5 mm/24h & Maximum > 25 mm/24h

  36. 50% of points (median) > 5 mm/24h & Maximum > 50 mm/24h

  37. 50% of points (median) > 5 mm/24h & Maximum > 75 mm/24h

  38. 50% of points (median) > 5 mm/24h & Maximum > 100 mm/24h

  39. 50% of points (median) > 10 mm/24h & Maximum > 25 mm/24h

  40. 50% of points (median) > 10 mm/24h & Maximum > 50 mm/24h

  41. 50% of points (median) > 10 mm/24h & Maximum > 75 mm/24h

  42. 50% of points (median) > 10 mm/24h & Maximum > 100 mm/24h

  43. 50% of points (median) > 20 mm/24h & Maximum > 25 mm/24h

  44. 50% of points (median) > 20 mm/24h & Maximum > 50 mm/24h

  45. 50% of points (median) > 20 mm/24h & Maximum > 75 mm/24h

  46. 50% of points (median) > 20 mm/24h & Maximum > 75 mm/24h

  47. Quick look to some common plots • Intercomparison between driving model and high resolution • Conditional verification • Fuzzy verification • Long term trends (mainly precipitation) WG5 COSMO General Meeting, Rome 2011

  48. Conditional VerificationTemp – TCC obs <=25% DJF SON JJA MAM Better behaviour for all the seasons Compare to no condition model

  49. Conditional VerificationTemp – TCC obs >=75%&Wind Speed (obs) <=2 m/s DJF SON JJA MAM Similar. Differences in bias

  50. ConditionalVerificationTemp – TCC obs <=25%&Wind Speed (obs) <=2 m/s DJF DJF SON MAM JJA Similar. Differences in bias

More Related