1 / 61

Some results from operational verification in Italy

Some results from operational verification in Italy. Angela Celozzi - Federico Grazzini Massimo Milelli - Elena Oberto Adriano Raspanti - Maria Stefania Tesini. Verification. CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs ECMWF CROSS MODEL COSMOI7 vs ECMWF CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs COSMOIT COSMOME –Upper Air

emmly
Download Presentation

Some results from operational verification in Italy

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. Some results from operational verification in Italy Angela Celozzi - Federico Grazzini Massimo Milelli - Elena Oberto Adriano Raspanti - Maria Stefania Tesini

  2. Verification CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs ECMWF CROSS MODEL COSMOI7 vs ECMWF CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs COSMOIT COSMOME –Upper Air COSMOI7 – Upper Air (OBS and Analysis) CONDITIONAL VERIFICATIONS Long Term and Seasonal Precipitation

  3. Verification CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs ECMWF CROSS MODEL ECMWF vs COSMOI7 CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs COSMOIT COSMOME –Upper Air COSMOI7 – Upper Air CONDITIONAL VERIFICATIONS Long Term and Seasonal Precipitation

  4. COSMOME vs ECMWF Temperature DJF SON MAM JJA

  5. COSMOME vs ECMWF Dew Point Temperature DJF SON MAM JJA

  6. COSMOME vs ECMWF Mean Sea Level Pressure DJF SON MAM JJA

  7. COSMOME vs ECMWF Total Cloud Cover DJF SON MAM JJA

  8. COSMOME vs ECMWF Wind Speed DJF SON MAM JJA

  9. Verification CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs ECMWF CROSS MODEL ECMWF vs COSMOI7 CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs COSMOIT COSMOME –Upper Air COSMOI7 – Upper Air CONDITIONAL VERIFICATIONS Long Term and Seasonal Precipitation

  10. COSMOI7 vs ECMWF Dew Point Temperature DJF SON MAM JJA

  11. COSMOI7 vs ECMWF Mean Sea Level Pressure DJF SON MAM JJA

  12. COSMOI7 vs ECMWF Wind Speed DJF SON MAM JJA

  13. COSMOI7 vs ECMWF Total Cloud Cover DJF SON MAM JJA

  14. Verification CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs ECMWF CROSS MODEL ECMWF vs COSMOI7 CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs COSMOIT COSMOME –Upper Air COSMOI7 – Upper Air CONDITIONAL VERIFICATIONS Long Term and Seasonal Precipitation

  15. TemperatureCOSMOME vs COSMOIT DJF SON MAM JJA

  16. Mean Sea Level PressureCOSMOME vs COSMOIT DJF SON MAM JJA

  17. Dew PointTemperatureCOSMOME vs COSMOIT DJF SON MAM JJA

  18. Total Cloud CoverCOSMOME vs COSMOIT DJF SON MAM JJA

  19. Wind SpeedCOSMOME vs COSMOIT DJF SON MAM JJA

  20. Conclusion • COSMO - ME generally better than IFS, except MSLP • COSMO – I7 better or almost the same than IFS • Comparison COSMO-ME and COSMO-IT shows improvements for High-Res.

  21. Verification CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs COSMOIT CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs ECMWF CROSS MODEL ECMWF vs COSMOI7 COSMOME – Upper Air COSMOI7 – Upper Air CONDITIONAL VERIFICATIONS Long Term and Seasonal Precipitation

  22. COSMOME –Upper AirTemperature

  23. COSMOME –Upper AirWind Speed

  24. Verification CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs COSMOIT CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs ECMWF CROSS MODEL ECMWF vs COSMOI7 COSMOME –UpperAir COSMOI7 – Upper Air CONDITIONAL VERIFICATIONS Long Term and Seasonal Precipitation

  25. COSMOI7 –Upper Air Temperature

  26. COSMOI7 –Upper AirWind Speed

  27. UPPER-AIR (against analysis) Spatial distribution of mean absolute error (MAE), computed over MAM 2010 MSL FC+48 – Each model is verified against its own analysis Shaded contouring every 0.5 hPa, starting from 0.5. Red and blue lines represent Positive/Negative bias, every 0.5 hPa COSMO I7 COSMO BackUp ECMWF

  28. UPPER-AIR (against analysis) MAE growth with forecast step, computed over COSMOI7 domain Spring 2010 (MAM 2010) – All models and analyses are interpolated on A regular grid at 0.25 * 0.25 deg of h-resolution. Everyone against its own analysis. MSL Forecast Step

  29. UPPER-AIR (against analysis) Spatial distribution of mean absolute error (MAE), computed over MAM 2010 T850 FC+48 – Each model is verified against its own analysis Shaded contouring every 0.5 C°, starting from 0.5. Red and blue lines represent Positive/Negative bias, every 0.5 C° COSMO BackUp ECMWF COSMO I7

  30. UPPER-AIR (against analysis) MAE growth with forecast step, computed over COSMOI7 domain Spring 2010 (MAM 2010) – All models and analyses are interpolated on A regular grid at 0.25 * 0.25 deg of h-resolution. Everyone against its own analysis. Z 700 hPa

  31. Conclusion • COSMO – ME and COSMO-I7 have a general good result in upper air Verification • COSMO-ME seems better, but improvement from MAM for COSMO-I7 (bug in • AOF file until march)

  32. Verification CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs COSMOIT CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs ECMWF CROSS MODEL ECMWF vs COSMOI7 COSMOME –Upper Air COSMOI7 – Upper Air CONDITIONAL VERIFICATIONS Long Term and Seasonal Precipitation

  33. Conditional VerificationTemp – TCC obs <=35% DJF SON Worse behaviour for all the seasons Compare to no condition model MAM

  34. Conditional VerificationTemp – TCC obs >=75% DJF SON Better behaviour for all the seasons Compare to no condition model MAM

  35. Conditional VerificationMSLP – MSLP >=mean DJF SON MAM

  36. Conditional Verification Tdew – Wind Speed (Obs) <=2 m/s DJF SON Almost indifferent to the condition in obs space MAM

  37. Conditional Verification Tdew – Wind Speed (fcs) <=2 m/s DJF SON Worse behaviour for all the seasons In fcs space MAM

  38. Temp – Prec +06 <=10 Conditional Verification Temp – Prec +06 <= 0,5

  39. Conditional VerificationTemp – MSLP >=mean DJF SON Worse behaviour in DJF for RMSE Similar fo other seasons MAM

  40. Conditional VerificationTemp – MSLP <=mean DJF SON General better behaviour for all the Seasons compare to NC MAM

  41. Conclusion • Comparison between NC and Cond verification seems effective in most of the cases • A standard set of Conditions should be decided by WG5 and produce on regular basis

  42. Verification CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs COSMOIT CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs ECMWF CROSS MODEL ECMWF vs COSMOI7 COSMOME –Upper Air COSMOI7 – Upper Air CONDITIONAL VERIFICATIONS Long Term and Seasonal Precipitation

  43. Seasonal trend - low thresholds • All the versions present a seasonal cycle with an overestimation during summertime (except COSMO-7 and I2) • COSMO-7 and I2 underestimate • Overestimation error decreases in D+2 (spin-up effect vanished) QPF verification of the 4 model versions at 7 km res. (COSMO-I7, COSMO-7, COSMO-EU, COSMO-ME) with the 2 model versions at 2.8 km res. (COSMO-I2, COSMO-IT) Dataset: high resolution network of rain gauges coming from COSMO dataset and Civil Protection Department  1300 stations Method: 24h/6h averaged cumulated precipitation value over 90 meteo-hydrological basins

  44. Seasonal trend - low thresholds • Very light improvement trend • Seasonal error cycle: lower ets during winter and summertime • no significant differences between D+1 and D+2 • Last winter (very snowy particularly in Northern Italy): low ets value (D+1 and D+2) model error or lack of representativeness of the rain gauges over the plain during snowfall ?

  45. Seasonal trend - low thresholds • Very light improvement trend • Seasonal cycle with more false alarms in summertime (particularly for I7) • no significant differences between D+1 and D+2

  46. Seasonal trend - low thresholds • Quite stationary during last seasons • I2 has very low values during summer • no significant differences between D+1 and D+2

  47. Driving model comparison: ECMWF/COSMO-ME/COSMO-IT, low thresholds • ECMWF tendency to forecast low rainfall amounts big overestimation, big false alarms, very low ets, quite good pod • Better prediction for COSMO-models (no strong differences between ME and IT)

  48. Driving model comparison: ECMWF/COSMO-ME/COSMO-IT, low thresholds • ECMWF tendency to forecast low rainfall amounts big overestimation, big false alarms, very low ets, quite good pod • Better prediction for COSMO-models BUT bad performance during summertime

  49. Seasonal trend - high thresholds • Slight bias reduction during latest seasons • Last winter: all the versions overestimate (probably due to lack of representativeness of the rain gauges over the plain during snowfall) • Strong COSMO-7 underestimation BUT slight improvement during latest seasons

  50. Seasonal trend - high thresholds • Low values during summertime • In general, quite stationary error since son2008 up to now • All the versions present a jump around son2008: ets increases from 0.2-0.4 up to 0.3-0.5 (cosmo-I7: son2008 introduction of 4.3 version with new T2m diagnostic) • Skill decreases with forecast time

More Related