1 / 23

Hydrometeorological Prediction Center 2011 Review

Hydrometeorological Prediction Center 2011 Review. Kenny James Forecaster. With contributions from Faye Barthold, Mike Bodner, Keith Brill, Mike Folmer, Jim Hoke, Dave Novak, Bob Oravec, Dan Petersen, and Mike Schichtel. 1. Objectives. Summary of HPC operations

teegan-tran
Download Presentation

Hydrometeorological Prediction Center 2011 Review

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. Hydrometeorological Prediction Center 2011 Review Kenny James Forecaster With contributions from Faye Barthold, Mike Bodner, Keith Brill, Mike Folmer, Jim Hoke, Dave Novak, Bob Oravec, Dan Petersen, and Mike Schichtel 1

  2. Objectives • Summary of HPC operations • Verification/Feedback/Future of • - QPF • - Winter weather • - Medium range • - Testbed activities 2

  3. Medium Range Hydrometeorological guidance for: HPC Operations QPF QPF Winter Weather Winter Weather Medium Range • NWS field offices • Other NCEP centers • Federal/state agencies • Aviation • Media • Private sector • International partners • Academic community • General public Model Diagnostics Model Diagnostics Short Term Weather Short Term Weather Surface Analysis Surface Analysis Tropical Tropical Alaska Med. Range Alaska Med. Range Daily Weather Map Daily Weather Map 3

  4. QPF Irene Mississippi Birds Point levee 4

  5. FY11 annual GPRA Goal 0.3, HPC 0.34 – 2nd highest ever % Improvement over NAM 31% % Improvement over GFS 25% % Improvement over ECMWF 13% 5

  6. 6

  7. QPF Feedback • Latest NAM (NEMS-NMMB) shows some improvement over prior version, possibly attributed to less of a slow bias • NAM CONUSNEST shows better skill than parent run • GFS more consistent and reliable since July 2010 implementation, more often the model of choice compared to pre-July 2010 version 7

  8. NAM & GFS Positional biases continue for MCSs From Yost and Schumacher, 2011 8

  9. 0.25” in 6h @ F24 May 2010 – June 2011 Perfect SREF SREF Mean/spread useful - contribute to variance for PQPF, but also overconfident SREF overconfident HPC PQPF – Gaining popularity! 9

  10. Hi-res NMM/ARW Often improve upon the north bias for MCSs Still a high bias with many false alarms Missed have them July 19/20 during record flooding due to preemption for tropical invest systems Contribute to a hi-res ensemble suite (SSEO) compiled at the SPC 10

  11. Winter Weather 11

  12. HPC Deterministic Snowfall East of the Rockies x 100 Heavily influenced by 2 major snowstorms, which models had difficulty with 12

  13. HPC Deterministic Snowfall East of the Rockies . 13

  14. Winter Wx Feedback New NAM too deep with lows Oct 28, Nov 1, 8, 28 - influences precip type & snow amounts in our WWD blender, forecasters less confident - Image from WFO La Crosse 15

  15. Winter Wx Feedback Cont. P-type & SN based on microphysics/LSM data Would like additional parameters for our WWD blender - NAM CONEST 700 mb temps - UKMET 78 hr 2m/925/850/700 mb temps Impact-based guidance to assist in decision support and determining societal impacts - SREF prob of ZR (0.1, 0.10, 0.25, etc..), Max SN rate 16

  16. Medium Range 17

  17. Manually Adjusted Days 4-7 Grid Verification vs RTMA 6 upgrades over the past year! 4) GMOS / GFS MEX MOS Hybrid 5) 50 day bias corrected ECMWF and ECMWF Ensemble Mean • RTMA based downscaling • Model 2m temps replace HPC adjusted MOS and GEFS MOS • 3) GMOS replaces MEX MOS 6) 50 day bias corrected GFS and GEFS Mean 18

  18. Medium Range Feedback GFS/GEFS Fast Bias • Verification white • GFS yellow • GEFS members brown too fast 19

  19. Medium Range Feedback GFS MOS Max T day 7 possibly bogus Max T at Roswell, NM much higher 20

  20. Medium Range Feedback NAEFS grids for all NDFD parameters More model guidance for watch/warning decision support & for determining societal impacts - GEFS probs for SN > 4, 8, 12”, ZR > 0.01, 0.10, 0.25” - Heat index > 105, Wind Chill < -15, Wind Speed > 25 or 35 kts Access to parallel runs of the GFS/GEFS without adaptive sounding data Hopeful that the improved NAM leads to a better DGEX 21

  21. Testbed Interactions • Active collaboration with EMC and sister Testbeds • - Spring/Winter Experiments • - Verification & Tools • Helps diagnose model errors & • train forecasters • - Convection-allowing guidance • - Explicit microphysics diagnostics • - New models/post processing • Desire even closer coordination on model /MOS imp. GOES-R Proving Ground 22

  22. Final thoughts & plans • Interpreting hi-res guidance may require a paradigm shift • Native grid resolution desired by forecasters • Clearer file naming convention for models • 2012-16 HPC plans & activities include: - Expand decision support services for high impact events - Extend medium range, including adding probabilities - Increase automation for greater responsiveness 23

  23. Questions? kenneth.james@noaa.gov 24

More Related