wg 4 activities
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
WG 4 activities

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 13

WG 4 activities - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 86 Views
  • Uploaded on

WG 4 activities. 1. COSMO LEPS. Feasibility study of COSMOLEPS at 7 km (cleps_7).

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' WG 4 activities' - rendor


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
feasibility study of cosmoleps at 7 km cleps 7

Feasibility study of COSMOLEPS at 7 km (cleps_7)

  • “Keep the pace” with deterministic model (x~ 2-3 km): if the gap in resolutions between deterministic and probabilistic systems is too large, the two systems go for different solutions (that is, they forecast different weather!).

Motivations:

Provide a more detailed description of mesoscale processes by incresing the horizontal resolution.

Do not lose a “reasonable advantage” against ECMWF EPS, which will go to x=25 km during 2009.

from 10 to 7 km (plus small domain extensions) does not seem a lot

cosmo leps at 7 km cleps 7 the answer to forecasters dream
COSMO-LEPS at 7 km (cleps_7): the answer to forecasters’ dream?

New system

x = 7 km

z = 40 ML

t = 72 s

ngp = 510x405x40 = 8.262.000

fcst range = 132h

cost = 1925 BU x run

elapsed time = 138 min

Present system

x = 10 km

z = 40 ML

t = 90 s

ngp = 306x258x40 = 3.157.920

fcst range = 132h

cost = 640 BU x run

elapsed time = 45 min

… cleps_7 is about 3 times more expensive than the present configuration

new computer at ECMWF being installed

Computer resources for each ECMWF member state will increase by a factor of 5 (five)  and ….

the dream is possible
The dream is possible

COSMO-LEPS 10 km

COSMO-LEPS 7 km

  • the grid of cleps_7 would be almost identical to that of COSMO-EU, this making easier and cleaner the use of initial fields provided by DWD (e.g. soil moisture analysis).
future plans 2008 and 2009
Future plans (2008 and 2009)
  • test the use of the Soil Moisture Analysis fields provided by DWD;
  • run cleps_7 for ~ 40 days in autumn 2008 and assess the impact;
  • within TIGGE-LAM, develop coding of COSMO-LEPS output files in GRIB2 format;
  • migration to the new machine at ECMWF;
  • use a better snow analysis (possibly provided by DWD or Meteoswiss);
  • extend the cluster analysis so as to consider not only ECMWF EPS, but also UKMO MOGREPS as global ensemble providing ic’s and bc’s (first tests);
  • implement cosmoleps_7;
  • gaining from COSMO-SREPS experience, introduce more model perturbations;
  • test COSMO-LEPS nested on the under-development ECMWF EDA over MAP D‑PHASE period;
  • optimise use of reforecasts + calibration of wind gust;
  • support CONSENS + verification
2 postprocessing
2. Postprocessing
  • Provide standard interface for internal postprocessing
      • WG6

WG4: Provide standard internal postprocessing methods (i.e. formula catalog)

  • Instability indices
  • Front parameter
  • Synthetic satellite images
  • Exchange external postprocessing methods
  • KF, MOS on wind, wind gusts
3 use and interpretation of models

mm/24h

COSMO-2

RADAR

3. Use and interpretation of models

Forecasters: we all started to use WRF for precipitation!

3 use and interpretation of nwp models
3. Use and interpretation of NWP models
  • Serious problems with “non-equilibrium convection cases ». Neither the 7km (parametrised convection) nor the 2km (explicit deep convection) predict precipitation correctly (even yes or no).
  • Who to blame?
  • The bad model(s)?
  • The forecasters overconfident in model(s)?
the problem
The problem

Quality of models

Expectations from models

1960

1970

1980

2000

2010

1990

expectations promises
Expectations / promises
  • Small grid spacing  high resolution forecast
  • Good (perfect) timing
  • Desire for sophisticated parameters:
    • Surface temperature
    • Rainfall
    • Cloudiness
    • Fog
    • Wind gusts
    • …..
  • Expectations: from forecasters
  • Promises: from modellers
discussion points
Discussion points
  • What is really the quality of a model?
  • Which model is better?
    • In which situation?
    • For which parameter?
  • In a convective situation, do we look a the model rainfall pattern or a TS index? Or synoptics?
  • How does it compare with a statistical postprocessing on a global model?
  • Conditional verification can (must) be used
    • How can forecasters specify the conditions (weather classification, stability, season,…)
  • How can these informations be communicated?
wg4 interpretation and applications
WG4: Interpretation and applications

Discussion on these topic also started (recently) within SRNWP

  • Catalog and exchange of posprocessing methods
  • Listing and exchange of end-user applications (agriculture, aviation,…)
  • Use and interpretation of models?

I am open to any collaborative suggestions for activities in this WG.

ad