1 / 56

Medium-range flood forecasting and warning

Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS system Andrea Montani ARPA-SIM H ydrometeorological service of Emilia-Romagna, Italy Thanks to H. Asensio, R. Buizza, F. Pappenberger, B. Ritter, J.W. Schipper. Medium-range flood forecasting and warning. X General COSMO meeting

daryl
Download Presentation

Medium-range flood forecasting and warning

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. Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS systemAndrea MontaniARPA-SIM Hydrometeorological service of Emilia-Romagna, ItalyThanks to H. Asensio, R. Buizza, F. Pappenberger, B. Ritter, J.W. Schipper Medium-range flood forecasting and warning X General COSMO meeting Cracow, 15-19 September 2008 A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  2. Workpackage Medium-Range Plain Flood of PREVIEW project • Aims: • Set-up and validation of the probabilistic medium-range flood forecasting using the meteorological products for the Upper-Danube in the hydrological year 2002, which includes the large flood of August 2002; to achieve this, • reruns of a number of state-of-the-art of atmospheric models were performed, • “convenient” (basin-oriented) scoring techniques for probabilistic forecasts were developed. • In terms of operational applications, the goal is to demonstrate the usefulness of probabilistic medium-range flood forecasting as a sound basis for early warning and decision making. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  3. The region of interest A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  4. Verification methodology MAIN FEATURES: Verification performed in terms of 24-hour precipitation (from 6UTC to 6UTC); fcst ranges: 18-42h, 42-66h, 66-90h, 90-114h, …; observations: gridded observations (about 5 km of horizontal resolution) provided by JRC; verification domain: full upper-Danube river basin and 3 (out of 19) sub-basins; verification period: 20 July - 31 August 2002. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  5. ID name of Basin area (km2) no. of gridded obs 1 Bratislava 131.978 5278 13 Wiblingen 2.247 80 16 Passau-Ingling 25.977 1045 20 Hofkirchen 47.534 1896 Sub-basin verification For each gridded observation, it was identified the sub-basin it belonged to. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  6. Catchment-based measures • centre of gravity:it is a specific point at which the system's mass behaves as if it were concentrated. The centre of mass/gravity is a function only of the positions and masses of the particles of the system. Deterministic measures for verification A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  7. Ensemble systems in PREVIEW • VarEPS by ECMWF (global, ensemble) • COSMO-LEPS by ARPA-SIM (limited-area, ensemble) A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  8. CoG distance CentreofGravity distance • Aim: quantify the "location error" of the precipitation forecast (by the ensemble mean); • the CoG is scaled with the "mean distance" in a catchment  a value of cog=0.3 for the catchment "Passau-Ingling" (mean distance =113 km) indicates a location error of the forecasted centre of gravity of precipitation in a catchment to the observerd centre of gravity of precipitation of about 30 km. • with the scaling, we get a dimensionless number (…the lower, the better…) to compare the absolute location error with respect to the catchment size. CoG • The absolute figures are very low (distances of the order of a few tens of km). • Little dependence of the distance from the forecast range. • Slightly higher distances for the Passau-Ingling basin (possibly related to observation problems in the Alpine region). • Best results for the smallest basin. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  9. Brier Score for VarEPS and COSMO-LEPS • BS measures the mean squared difference between forecast and observation in probability space. • equivalent to MSE for deterministic forecast. • BS between 0 and 1; the lower the better …. • the largest (Bratislava) and the smallest (Wiblingen) basins are considered (tp > 80% of obs distribution). BS • ECMWF : solid. • COSMO-LEPS: dotted. • Low values for both models: GOOD! • COSMO-LEPS performs better over the smaller basins (not well resolved by VarEPS). • Similar performance of the two systems over the largest basin. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  10. For the other results, come and see the poster! A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  11. Thank you ! A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  12. 15d VAREPS T0 +360 +240 32d MOFC T0 15d and 32d VAREPS T0 +360 +240 +768 The 32-day unified VarEPS at ECMWF Unification of the 15d VarEPS (50+1 members) and the 32d monthly forecast (MOFC) systems into the unified 32d VarEPS: old system Twice-a-day (at 00 and 12 UTC): • d 0-10: TL399L62 uncoupled • d 10-15: TL255L62 uncoupled Once a week: • d 0-32: TL159L62 coupled +768 NEW SYSTEM (since 11/3/2008) Twice-a-day (at 00 and 12 UTC): • d 0-10: TL399L62 uncoupled • d 10-15: TL255L62 coupled at 00 Once a week: • d 0-10: TL399L62 uncoupled • d 10-32: TL255L62 coupled A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  13. Skill of ECMWF predictions for hydrological modelling • Nash_Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient: normally used to assess the predictive power of hydrological models. • … the higher, the better (ranges from –  to 1) • Timing of forecasts is good, although underestimation occurs. • The ensemble spread brackets observations only partially. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  14. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008 17th of July 2007

  15. 7 Panel version A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  16. Atmospheric models in PREVIEW • COSMO-LEPS by ARPA-SIM (limited-area, ensemble) A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  17. MAIN FEATURES: • initial time: 12 UTC (i.e. once a day); • bc and ic: “selected” VarEPS members; • COSMO-LEPS configuration • 10 members; • hor. res. = 10 km; 32 vertical levels; • forecast length: 132h; • archived variables: surf and plev up to +132h, every 3h; • output fields archived at ECMWF; • rerun period: 20 July – 31 August 2002. integration domain COSMO-LEPS (developed at ARPA-SIM) COSMO-LEPS: the Limited-area Ensemble Prediction System (LEPS), based on COSMO-model and implemented within COSMO (COnsortium for Small-scale MOdelling, including Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Romania, Switzerland). A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  18. Brier Skill Score vs forecast range • BSS is written as 1-BS/BSref. Sample climate is the reference system. Useful forecast systems if BSS > 0. • BS measures the mean squared difference between forecast and observation in probability space. • Equivalent to MSE for deterministic forecast. BSS • For low thresholds, better performance over the smallest basin. • For higher thresholds, more difficult to assess a clear trend (possible sampling problems over small basins). • Worse than climatology only for d+5 range (10 and 20 mm threshold). A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  19. Brier Skill Score vs increasing threshold • BSS is plotted vs increasing threshold to assess the COSMO-LEPS skill as a function of rainfall intensity. BSS +42h BSS +90h • BSS positive for all thresholds at both forecast ranges. • At low thresholds, it is confirmed the higher skill of COSMO-LEPS over the smallest basin. • Stable skill of the system for intermediate basins. • For higher thresholds, more difficult to assess a clear trend (sampling problems over the small basin). A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  20. Ranked Probability Skill Score • A sort of BSS, but “cumulated” over all thresholds. • Useful forecast system, if RPSS > 0. RPSS • RPSS always positive. • Better (worse) performance of the system over the smallest (largest) basin. • Almost identical scores using either nearest grid-point (NGP) or bilinear interpolation (BILIN). A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  21. ROC area vs increasing threshold • ROC area is plotted vs increasing threshold to assess the dependence of COSMO-LEPS HIT/FAR diagram on rainfall intensity. ROC +42h ROC +90h • ROC area always above 0.7 for all thresholds at both forecast ranges. • At low thresholds, it is confirmed the higher skill of COSMO-LEPS over the smallest basin (the same as BSS). • Scores increase with thresholds for intermediate and large basins. • For higher thresholds, more difficult to assess a clear trend (sampling problems over the small basin). A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  22. ROC area vs forecast range • Area under the curve in the HIT rate vs FAR diagram. • Valuable forecast systems have ROC area values > 0.6. ROC • ROC area always above 0.6; • at low thresholds, better COSMO-LEPS performance over the smallest basin; • possible sampling problems at 20 mm thresholds. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  23. Outliers • How many times the analysis is outside the forecast interval spanned by the ensemble members. • … the lower the better … OUTL • The absolute figures are quite large (about 20% at d+5 range). • Lower outliers for the smallest basin. • Similar percentages for all basins at the longest forecast range. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  24. Main results andfuture plans • Output files are of COSMO-LEPS, for the period 20/7/ to 31/8/2002, are archived on ECFS (retrieval script disseminated) and ready to be used for hydrological purposes; for any kind of help with grib files, just ask. • Verification against gridded observations (about 5300 in the full upper-Danube basin) indicates better performance of the system over the smallest basin, especially for low thresholds. • OLD RESULT (Offenbach, 25-26-/9/2007): Verification against SYNOP stations (about 100 in the full upper-Danube basin) indicates slightly better performance of the system over larger basins, although results are not statistically robust. • Difficulty to understand and use the CoG measure for a probabilistic system. • Finish the work on the verification report. • Provide COSMO-LEPS fields for 2-month real-time testing (no “bureaucratic” problems envisaged). • Real-time testing of services will be done using the “improved” COSMO–LEPS (16 members; 40 vertical levels; physics perturbations). A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  25. Main results • During the hydrological year 2002, reruns of a number of NWP systems, both global-scale and limited-area, both deterministic and probabilistic. • Development of new • basin-oriented scores (e.g. centre of gravity); • hydrological-oriented products (e.g. rivergrams); • All systems seem to provide useful guidance for the possible occurrence of flood events also for forecast ranges up to 7 (5) days for global (limited-area) systems. • Verification vs gridded observations (about 5300 in the full upper-Danube basin) indicates better performance of the high-res system over the smaller basin. • The verification period is probably too short to draw general (and statistically solid) conclusions about the overall skill of the different forecast systems; the “Plain-flood campaign” clearly shows the potential of state-of-the-art NWP systems in the field of weather forecasting for river flooding. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  26. Probabilistic measures for verification • Brier Score • The BS is the mean-squared error of the probability forecasts: • where: • the observation is either ok = 1 (the event occurs) or ok = 0 (the event does not occur); • fk is the fraction of ensemble members which forecast a precipitation amount exceeding that threshold • k denotes a numbering of the N forecast/event pairs. • BS ranges from 0 to 1, the perfect forecast having BS = 0. • BS is computed for a fixed precipitation threshold. • ROC area • It is the area under the Relative Operating Characteristics curve in the HIT rate vs FAR diagram • The integral under the curve is used to indicate the skill of the forecast. • ROC area ranges from 0 to 1 … the higher the better … • Useful forecast systems have ROC area values greater than 0.6 A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  27. Summary of measures • Deterministic measures: • Root Mean Squared Error • Mean Error • Probability of detection • Probability of false detection • True Skill Statistics • Centre of gravity • Coverage • Probabilistic measures: • Brier score • ROC area A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  28. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  29. continuous measures (RMSE and MAE for the ensemble mean); • catchment-based measures (CentreofGravity for the ensemble mean); • probabilistic measures (Brier Skill Score, ROC area, Percentage of Outliers, …). • Centre of Gravity: the centre of gravity of a system of raster cells is a specific point at which, for many purposes, the system's mass behaves as if it were concentrated. The centre of mass is a function only of the positions and masses of the particles that comprise the system. • CoG: Centre of Gravity measure • c: Centre of gravity • dist: Distance • f: forecast • distmean: mean distance of grid elements to catchment outlet • obs: observed • p: precipitation • c= this score indicates a location error of the forecast, a perfect score having the value of 0. Performance measures A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  30. Catchment Information SystemRiver-grams Sylvie Lamy-Thepaut, Enrico Fucile A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  31. Main results • During the hydrological year 2002 (1/10/2001 to 30/9/2002), reruns of a number of NWP systems, both global-scale and limited-area, both deterministic and probabilistic. • Coordinated efforts to provide state-of-the-art weather forecasts over the Danube river basin. • Development of basin-oriented scores • Development of hydrological-oriented products (e.g. rivergrams) • All systems seem to provide useful guidance for the occurrence of flood events. Time-series verification scores indicate the following trends: • increase in ROC area scores and reduction in outliers percentages; • positive impact of increasing the population from 5 to 10 members (June 2004); • some deficiency in the skill of the system can be identified after the system upgrades occurred on February 2006 (from 10 to 16 members; from 32 to 40 model levels), BUT • scores are encouraging throughout DPHASE Operations Period. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  32. What is left? • “Close the gap” between hydrological and meteorological communities. • Learn from MAP D-PHASE experience • Exploit the wealth of information provided by probabilistic forecasts: • assess performance over different domains (North and South of the Alps), • study individual case studies, • consider basin-by-basin performance. • “Think about” increasing horizontal resolution to 7 km. • Calibrate COSMO-LEPS fcsts using reforecasts (F. Fundel , Meteoswiss). A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  33. ID name of Basin area (km2) no. of “stations” approx no of grid points 1 Bratislava 131.978 5278 1320 13 Wiblingen 2.247 80 20 16 Passau-Ingling 25.977 1045 260 20 Hofkirchen 47.534 1896 470 Sub-basin verification For each gridded observation, it was identified the sub-basin it belonged to. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  34. Ranked Probability Skill Score • A sort of BSS, but “cumulated” over all thresholds. • Useful forecast system, if RPSS > 0. RPSS • RPSS always positive. • Better (worse) performance of the system over the smallest (largest) basin. • Almost identical scores using either nearest grid-point (NGP) or bilinear interpolation (BILIN). A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  35. CoG distance CentreOfGravity distance • Scaled (that is, dimensionless) distance between predicted (by COSMO-LEPS ensemble mean) and observed centre of gravity for each catchment. • the "cog" is an attempt to quantify the "location error" of the precipitation forecast; we have scaled the "cog" with the "mean distance" in a catchment - so a value of cog=0.3 for the catchment "Passau-Ingling" with a mean distance distmean=113 km indicates a location error of the forecasted centre of gravity of precipitation in a catchment to the observerd centre of gravity of precipitation of about 30 km. With the scaling we get a (dimensonless) number to compare the absolute location error with respect to the catchment size. • … the lower the better … CoG • The absolute figures are very low (distances of the order of a few tens of km). • Little dependence of the distance from the forecast range. • Slightly higher distances for the Passau-Ingling basin. • Best results for the Wiblingen basin (the smallest one) • Similar distances for the other basins. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  36. Catchment Information System River-grams • Proto type, currently implemented operational. • Database of catchments will be extended to more catchments in Europe and to include all major World catchments. • Variables are currently static (always the same for all catchments), but will be ‘dynamic’ – reflecting the usage of catchments. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  37. Outliers • How many times the analysis is outside the forecast interval spanned by the ensemble members. • … the lower the better … OUTL • The absolute figures are quite large (about 20% at d+5 range). • Lower outliers for the smallest basin. • Similar percentages for all basins at the longest forecast range. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  38. Catchment-based verification of GME (2) period 2002-01-01 – 2002-09-30 • Verification of GME forecasts against rain gauge data from high density observation network for the four sub-catchments of the Danube with different catchment sizes: • increasing centre of gravity score („location error“) with increasing forecast time; • a positive mean coverage error for this period. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  39. Catchment-based verification of DWD models (2) period 2002-07-19 – 2002-08-20 • Verification of GME and COSMO-EU forecasts against rain gauge observations for the catchment Hofkirchen (upper Danube): • increasing centre of gravity score („location error“) with increasing forecast time • mostly a negative mean coverage error for this period the verification period might be too short for scores to be statistically significant. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  40. COSMO-1km – cont. measures A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008 A.Montani; Novelties in weather forecasting PREVIEW training workshop - Mosonmagyaróvár - 19-20 June 2008

  41. Dim 2 Possible evolution scenarios Cluster members chosen as representative members (RMs) Initial conditions Dim 1 LAM scenario Dim 2 LAM scenario LAM integrations driven by RMs LAM scenario Dim 1 Initial conditions COSMO-LEPS methodology ensemble size reduction A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  42. COSMO-LEPS (developed at ARPA-SIM) What is it? It is a Limited-area Ensemble Prediction System (LEPS), based on COSMO-model and implemented within COSMO (COnsortium for Small-scale MOdelling, which includes Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Romania, Switzerland). Why? It was developed to combine the advantages of global-model ensembles with the high-resolution details gained by the LAMs, so as to identify the possible occurrence of severe and localised weather events (heavy rainfall, strong winds, temperature anomalies, snowfall, …) generation of COSMO-LEPS to improve the Late-Short (48hr) to Early-Medium (132hr) range forecast of severe weather events. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  43. ROC area vs forecast range • Area under the curve in the HIT rate vs FAR diagram. • Valuable forecast systems have ROC area values > 0.6. ROC • ROC area always above 0.6. • Similar results to those obtained in terms of BSS: at low thresholds, better COSMO-LEPS performance over the smallest basin. • Possible sampling problems at 20 mm thresholds. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  44. The probabilistic measures we used, are the Brier Score and the ROC area. The thresholds for their computation are based on both absolute values (>1mm) and on the percentiles of the observed cumulative precipitation distribution (> 80% of observed). Probabilistic measures for verification (1) • Brier Score • The BS is the mean-squared error of the probability forecasts; it averages the squared difference between pairs of forecast probabilities and the correspondent binary observations: • where: • the observation is either ok = 1 (the event occurs) or ok = 0 (the event does not occur); • k denotes a numbering of the N forecast/event pairs. • BS ranges from 0 to 1, the perfect forecast having BS = 0. • BS is computed for a fixed precipitation threshold and fk is the fraction of the ensemble members which forecast a precipitation amount exceeding that threshold. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  45. Probabilistic measures for verification (2) • ROC area • It is the area under the Relative Operating Characteristics curve in the HIT rate vs FAR diagram • Hit rate (HR) and false alarm rate (FAR) are computed for each probability class k: • where: • the verification sample is subdivided into subsamples of size Nk, according to the probability with which the event is forecasted, • ok is the frequency with which the event is observed, being forecasted with a given probability and is the sample climatology. • The cumulative HRk are plotted against the corresponding cumulative FARk, generating the ROC curve. • The integral under the curve is used to indicate the skill of the forecast. • ROC area ranges from 0 to 1, the higher the better. • Useful forecast systems have ROC area values greater than 0.6 A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  46. COSMO-1km – Skill Scores (IMK) A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008 A.Montani; Novelties in weather forecasting PREVIEW training workshop - Mosonmagyaróvár - 19-20 June 2008

  47. A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008 17th of July 2007

  48. Outline • Introduction • Measure for model performance (precipitation only) • Atmospheric models re-run for PREVIEW: • GME by DWD (global, deterministic), • COSMO-EU by DWD (limited-area, deterministic), • VarEPS by ECMWF (global, ensemble), • COSMO-LEPS by ARPA-SIM (limited-area, ensemble), • COSMO-1km by IMK (limited-area, deterministic) • (tomorrow’s talk by J.W. Schipper) • Application to the Danube sub-basins • Lesson learnt A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  49. Continuous measures • The Mean Error (ME, bias) of the precipitation forecast against the measurement (F: Forecast; O: Observations; N: sample size): • ME ranges from –infinity to infinity; the closer to zero, the better … Deterministic measures for verification (1) • Categorical measures • Consider thresholds (e.g. tp >1mm and tp > 80% of observed mean). • Scores are generated with the help of a contingency table: A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

  50. Atmospheric models in PREVIEW • GME by DWD (global, deterministic) • COSMO-EU by DWD (limited-area, deterministic) A.Montani; Basin-oriented verification of COSMO-LEPS X COSMO meeting – Cracow – 15-19 September 2008

More Related