210 likes | 384 Views
COSMO-LEPS objective verification. Chiara Marsigli, Francesco Boccanera, Andrea Montani, Fabrizio Nerozzi, Tiziana Paccagnella ARPA-SMR, Bologna, Italy. Langen, 24-26 September 2003. COSMO-LEPS suite @ ECMWF. COSMO-LEPS INTEGRATION DOMAIN. LOKAL MODELL 10 KM HORIZONTAL RESOLUTION.
E N D
COSMO-LEPS objective verification Chiara Marsigli, Francesco Boccanera, Andrea Montani, Fabrizio Nerozzi, Tiziana Paccagnella ARPA-SMR, Bologna, Italy Langen, 24-26 September 2003
COSMO-LEPS INTEGRATION DOMAIN LOKAL MODELL 10 KM HORIZONTAL RESOLUTION
COSMO-LEPS Deterministic products for each of the 5 LM runs: Precipitation Mean Sea level pressure 700 hPa Geopotential 850 hPa Temperature Lokal Model scenarios Transfer to Cosmo Partners and other interested Member States • Probability Maps • prob of 24h rainfall exceeding 20,50,100,150 mm • prob of 24h Tmax exceeding 20,30,35,40 C • prob of 24h Tmin below -10,-5,0,+5 C • prob of 24h Vmax exceeding 10,15,20,25 m/s • prob of 24h snowfall exceeding 1,5,10,20 mm of equivalent water
November 2002 – January 2003 Northern Italy Bilinear interpolation 24h total precipitation
> 1mm/24h > 10mm/24h > 20mm/24h
> 30mm/24h > 50mm/24h
COSMO-LEPS EPS SE +24h
COSMO-LEPS EPS SE +96h
PROXY RAIN LOKAL MODELL - 10 KM FC +12h - +36h
PROXY RAIN 15/11 12UTC
PROXY RAIN 16/11 12UTC
November 2002 Northern Italy Nearest point 24h total precipitation
> 1mm/24h > 10mm/24h > 20mm/24h
> 30mm/24h > 50mm/24h
Weighting procedure It is possible to decide (in real-time) if it is better to weight or not to weight? Dependence from ensemble spread? Flow dependence?
Concluding remarks COSMO-LEPS is always more skillful than the 5RM EPS, sometimes also than SE, but more statistics is needed for high thresholds Weighting both COSMO-LEPS members and ECMWF RMs causes a worsening of the scores Verification against proxy-rain gives better results for higher thresholds Verification will be soon extended to other COSMO countries (new data-set)