1 / 25

Improving the Validation and Prediction of Tropical Cyclone Rainfall

Improving the Validation and Prediction of Tropical Cyclone Rainfall. Timothy P. Marchok NOAA/GFDL Princeton, NJ Robert F. Rogers NOAA/AOML/HRD Miami, FL Robert E. Tuleya NOAA/NCEP/EMC/SAIC Camp Springs, MD 58 th Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference, Charleston, SC March 1-5, 2004

keira
Download Presentation

Improving the Validation and Prediction of Tropical Cyclone Rainfall

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. Improving the Validation and Prediction of Tropical Cyclone Rainfall Timothy P. Marchok NOAA/GFDL Princeton, NJ Robert F. Rogers NOAA/AOML/HRD Miami, FL Robert E. Tuleya NOAA/NCEP/EMC/SAIC Camp Springs, MD 58th Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference, Charleston, SC March 1-5, 2004 * This project is being funded by the Joint Hurricane Testbed (JHT)

  2. Goals • Goal: Develop a set of rainfall validation schemes more suited specifically for TCs • Motivation: Conventional precip skill scores are often difficult to interpret in the context of tropical cyclones • Goal: Produce model QPF error statistics for historic U.S. landfalling storms. • Motivation: No systematic QPF verification has been done on NWS operational models for the specific subset of landfalling U.S. tropical cyclones • Goal: Develop a modified R-CLIPER that incorporates vertical shear & storm track data. • Motivation: Recent research has shown that including vertical shear information can add structure to R-CLIPER's currently symmetric rainfall distribution

  3. Outline • Standard QPF verifications • GFDL model: 1995-2002 storms; rain gauge data • NWS operational suite: 1998-2003 storms; Stage IV gridded rainfall analyses • Application of a new verification technique to Hurricane Isabel’s landfall • Future work

  4. GFDL Model QPF Verification, 1995-2002 • Verification data: Hourly & daily rain gauges • Gauge data within 800 km of storm track was summed over model forecast interval • Interpolated model storm total rainfall to gauge location • Average of 211 hourly gauges per storm • Nearly 1200 daily gauges per storm • Only used forecasts initialized at 12 UTC, to coincide with daily rain gauge network • All storms within ~24h of landfall

  5. U.S. Landfalling Cases for Model Evaluation NWS Operational Suite GFDL, R-CLIPER

  6. QPF Bias Scores: GFDL vs. R-CLIPER

  7. Equitable Threat Scores

  8. Model vs. obs correlation: A first guess at pattern matching

  9. Track error <-> QPF error

  10. Storm Intensity <-> QPF Error

  11. QPF verification for NWS model suite: 28 storms from 1998-2003 • GFDL, NCEP/GFS, NCEP/Eta, R-CLIPER, 2xR-CLIPER • GFDL 2003 version used for all 28 cases • Obs data: Hourly multi-sensor (radar, gauge) gridded data available online from NCAR • 2002-2003: NCEP/EMC Stage IV data • 1998-2001: NCEP/EMC Stage II data

  12. QPF Bias Scores

  13. QPF Equitable Threat Scores

  14. GFS: 0.65 Eta: 0.56 GFDL: 0.52 RCLIP: 0.47

  15. GFS: 0.65 Eta: 0.56 GFDL: 0.52 RCLIP: 0.47

  16. GFDL Stage IV GFS Eta

  17. GFDL Stage IV GFS Eta

  18. Rainfall statistics for observations and forecasts of 24-h rain from 12 UTC 18 to 12 UTC 19 September for Isabel (2003)

  19. Cumulative frequency (%) Frequency (%) PDF and CDF comparisons of rain flux binned by rain amount Plot of 24-h rain (in) from 12 UTC 18 to 12 UTC 19 September for Isabel (2003) for NPVU and R-CLIPER Stage IV R-CLIPER

  20. Cumulative frequency (%) Frequency (%) PDF and CDF comparisons of rain flux binned by rain amount Plot of 24-h rain (in) from 12 UTC 18 to 12 UTC 19 September for Isabel (2003) for NPVU and GFDL Stage IV GFDL

  21. Cumulative frequency (%) Frequency (%) PDF and CDF comparisons of rain flux binned by rain amount Plot of 24-h rain (in) from 12 UTC 18 to 12 UTC 19 September for Isabel (2003) for NPVU and GFS Stage IV GFS

  22. Cumulative frequency (%) Frequency (%) PDF and CDF comparisons of rain flux binned by rain amount Plot of 24-h rain (in) from 12 UTC 18 to 12 UTC 19 September for Isabel (2003) for NPVU and Eta Stage IV Eta

  23. 10 RCLIPER GFDL GFS ETA forecast R (in) 1 0.1 0.1 1 10 observed R (in) Probability-matched 24-h rain estimates from Stage IV data vs. R-CLIPER, GFDL, GFS, and Eta models for Hurricane Isabel 90% 90% 90% 10% 10% 10% 10%

  24. Summary & Future Plans • QPF error stats for landfalling TCs: • GFDL only: 1995-2002 vs. rain gauge data • NWS suite: 1998-2003 vs. gridded Stage IV data • Compare operational GFDL vs. 2003 GFDL for all storms, 1995-2003 • Development of a set of QPF verification schemes more suited to TCs • Apply a PDF/CDF method to TC rain flux • Use PDF/CDF method on NWS suite, 1998-2003 • Investigate other spatial-based methods? • Develop a modified R-CLIPER that incorporates vertical shear & storm track data (Year 2)

More Related