1 / 21

Ceiling Forecasts Comparing Dev and Dev2 Models in the Great Lakes Area

This analysis compares the ceiling forecasts from the Dev and Dev2 models in the Great Lakes area. It examines the verification of the forecasts and highlights the differences in their performance. The impact of TAMDAR data on the forecasts is also analyzed.

johnconnolly
Download Presentation

Ceiling Forecasts Comparing Dev and Dev2 Models in the Great Lakes Area

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. RUC Cloud/Ceiling Forecasts with and without TAMDAR Brian Jamison NOAA/FRD/FSL - CIRA

  2. August 18, 00 UTC, 6hr fcst Dev forecast - shows low ceilings just north of MN, also some low ceilings in southern IL and IN.

  3. August 18, 00 UTC, 6hr fcst Dev2 forecast - shows low ceilings in northern MN, fewer low ceilings in southern IL and IN.

  4. August 18, 06 UTC, analysis Dev analysis - low ceilings in northern MN verify for Dev2, but Dev forecast is somewhat better for ceilings in southern IL and IN.

  5. August 18, 00 UTC, 6hr fcst Dev forecast of Aviation Flight Rules - similar to ceiling forecast

  6. August 18, 00 UTC, 6hr fcst Dev2 forecast of Aviation Flight Rules - similar to ceiling forecast. Shows large area of LIFR over northern MN.

  7. August 18, 06 UTC, analysis Analysis of Aviation Flight Rules - most of the area of LIFR over northern MN verifies for Dev2.

  8. August 23, 00 UTC, 6hr fcst Dev forecast - shows MI cloud free over almost the entire state.

  9. August 23, 00 UTC, 6hr fcst Dev2 forecast - some bases between 3000-5000 ft. in central MI.

  10. August 23, 06 UTC, analysis Verifying analysis has ceilings over most of MI, favoring the Dev2 forecast.

  11. August 23, 06 UTC, METAR obs Observed ceilings from METAR network further validate low ceilings over MI.

  12. August 22, 21-24 UTC, TAMDAR TAMDAR data that likely contributed to the Dev2 fcst. Three separate soundings show a high RH layer at about 5000 ft.

  13. August 24, 12 UTC, 3hr fcst Dev forecast - a few areas of low ceilings in Great Lakes area including a small area in southeast WI.

  14. August 24, 12 UTC, 3hr fcst Dev2 forecast - more low ceilings in the Great Lakes area, particularly over Lake Superior and Lake Michigan. Low ceilings in SE WI extend further north.

  15. August 24, 15 UTC, analysis Verifying analysis shows some low ceilings over Lake Superior and in central and SE WI.

  16. August 24, 15 UTC, METAR METAR ceiling observations identify the ceilings in WI, a few in MI, and one just south of Lake Michigan, but no METAR sites on the Lakes themselves.

  17. August 24, 1515 UTC, Satellite Vis Image Visible satellite image confirms clouds in WI and MI, but none over the Great Lakes. Why did Dev2 show extensive low ceilings?

  18. August 24, 09-12 UTC, TAMDAR flight paths Four TAMDAR flights near Lake Superior.

  19. August 24, 09-12 UTC, TAMDAR soundings Corresponding TAMDAR soundings near Lake Superior. Note the northerly winds.

  20. August 24, 12 UTC, 3hr fcst Dev-Dev2 differences Difference plot for 1000mb reveals RH differences in and south of Lake Superior. Also note that temperature differences in the same area show Dev2 to be colder than Dev.

  21. Conclusions • Cases are seen where Dev2 ceiling forecasts verify better than Dev, although there are some cases where Dev has better verification. • Need to examine statistics for the forecasts, particularly in the TAMDAR area. • Examine the high-resolution period with respect to an adjacent period, and with respect to more recent periods with updated reject lists.

More Related