COSMO General Meeting – Moscow 06-10 Sept 2010 Some results from operational verification in Italy...

COSMO General Meeting – Moscow 06-10 Sept 2010

Some results from operational verification in Italy

Angela Celozzi - Federico GrazziniMassimo Milelli - Elena Oberto

Adriano Raspanti - Maria Stefania Tesini

Verification

CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs ECMWF CROSS MODEL COSMOI7 vs ECMWF CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs COSMOIT COSMOME –Upper Air COSMOI7 – Upper Air (OBS and

Analysis) CONDITIONAL VERIFICATIONS Long Term and Seasonal Precipitation

Verification

CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs ECMWF CROSS MODEL ECMWF vs COSMOI7 CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs COSMOIT COSMOME –Upper Air COSMOI7 – Upper Air CONDITIONAL VERIFICATIONS Long Term and Seasonal Precipitation

COSMOME vs ECMWF Temperature

COSMOME vs ECMWF Dew Point Temperature

COSMOME vs ECMWF Mean Sea Level Pressure

COSMOME vs ECMWF Total Cloud Cover

COSMOME vs ECMWF Wind Speed

Verification

COSMOI7 vs ECMWF Dew Point Temperature

COSMOI7 vs ECMWF Mean Sea Level Pressure

COSMOI7 vs ECMWF Wind Speed

COSMOI7 vs ECMWF Total Cloud Cover

Verification

TemperatureCOSMOME vs COSMOIT

Mean Sea Level PressureCOSMOME vs COSMOIT

Dew PointTemperatureCOSMOME vs COSMOIT

Total Cloud CoverCOSMOME vs COSMOIT

Wind SpeedCOSMOME vs COSMOIT

Conclusion

• COSMO - ME generally better than IFS, except MSLP

• COSMO – I7 better or almost the same than IFS

• Comparison COSMO-ME and COSMO-IT shows improvements for High-Res.

Verification

CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs COSMOIT CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs ECMWF CROSS MODEL ECMWF vs COSMOI7 COSMOME – Upper Air COSMOI7 – Upper Air CONDITIONAL VERIFICATIONS Long Term and Seasonal Precipitation

COSMOME –Upper AirTemperature

COSMOME –Upper AirWind Speed

Verification

CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs COSMOIT CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs ECMWF CROSS MODEL ECMWF vs COSMOI7 COSMOME –UpperAir COSMOI7 – Upper Air CONDITIONAL VERIFICATIONS Long Term and Seasonal Precipitation

COSMOI7 –Upper Air Temperature

COSMOI7 –Upper AirWind Speed

COSMO I7 COSMO BackUp ECMWF

MSL FC+48 – Each model is verified against its own analysis

Shaded contouring every 0.5 hPa, starting from 0.5. Red and blue lines representPositive/Negative bias, every 0.5 hPa

Spatial distribution of mean absolute error (MAE), computed over MAM 2010

UPPER-AIR (against analysis)

Forecast Step

MAE growth with forecast step, computed over COSMOI7 domainSpring 2010 (MAM 2010) – All models and analyses are interpolated onA regular grid at 0.25 * 0.25 deg of h-resolution. Everyone against its own analysis. MSL

Spatial distribution of mean absolute error (MAE), computed over MAM 2010

T850 FC+48 – Each model is verified against its own analysis

Shaded contouring every 0.5 C°, starting from 0.5. Red and blue lines representPositive/Negative bias, every 0.5 C°

COSMO I7 COSMO BackUp ECMWF

MAE growth with forecast step, computed over COSMOI7 domainSpring 2010 (MAM 2010) – All models and analyses are interpolated onA regular grid at 0.25 * 0.25 deg of h-resolution. Everyone against its own analysis. Z 700 hPa

Conclusion

• COSMO – ME and COSMO-I7 have a general good result in upper air Verification

• COSMO-ME seems better, but improvement from MAM for COSMO-I7 (bug in AOF file until march)

Verification

CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs COSMOIT CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs ECMWF CROSS MODEL ECMWF vs COSMOI7 COSMOME –Upper Air COSMOI7 – Upper Air CONDITIONAL VERIFICATIONS Long Term and Seasonal Precipitation

Conditional Verification Temp – TCC obs <=35%

Worse behaviour for all the seasonsCompare to no condition model

Conditional Verification Temp – TCC obs >=75%

Better behaviour for all the seasonsCompare to no condition model

Conditional Verification MSLP – MSLP >=mean

Conditional Verification Tdew – Wind Speed (Obs) <=2 m/s

Almost indifferent to the condition in obs space

Conditional Verification Tdew – Wind Speed (fcs) <=2 m/s

Worse behaviour for all the seasonsIn fcs space

Conditional Verification

Temp – Prec +06 <= 0,5 Temp – Prec +06 <=10

Conditional VerificationTemp – MSLP >=mean

Worse behaviour in DJF for RMSESimilar fo other seasons

Conditional VerificationTemp – MSLP <=mean

General better behaviour for all theSeasons compare to NC

Conclusion

• Comparison between NC and Cond verification seems effective in most of the cases

• A standard set of Conditions should be decided by WG5 and produce on regular basis

Verification

CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs COSMOIT CROSS MODEL COSMOME vs ECMWF CROSS MODEL ECMWF vs COSMOI7 COSMOME –Upper Air COSMOI7 – Upper Air CONDITIONAL VERIFICATIONS Long Term and Seasonal Precipitation

Seasonal trend - low thresholds• All the versions present a seasonal cycle with an overestimation during summertime (except COSMO-7 and I2)• COSMO-7 and I2 underestimate• Overestimation error decreases in D+2 (spin-up effect vanished)

QPF verification of the 4 model versions at 7 km res. (COSMO-I7, COSMO-7, COSMO-EU, COSMO-ME) with the 2 model versions at 2.8 km res. (COSMO-I2, COSMO-IT)Dataset: high resolution network of rain gauges coming from COSMO dataset and Civil Protection Department 1300 stationsMethod: 24h/6h averaged cumulated precipitation value over 90 meteo-hydrological basins

• Very light improvement trend

• Seasonal error cycle: lower ets during winter and summertime

• no significant differences between D+1 and D+2

• Last winter (very snowy particularly in Northern Italy): low ets value (D+1 and D+2) model error or lack of representativeness of the rain gauges over the plain during snowfall ?

Seasonal trend - low thresholds

• Very light improvement trend

• Seasonal cycle with more false alarms in summertime (particularly for I7)

• Quite stationary during last seasons

• I2 has very low values during summer

Driving model comparison: ECMWF/COSMO-ME/COSMO-IT, low thresholds

• ECMWF tendency to forecast low rainfall amounts big overestimation, big false alarms, very low ets, quite good pod

• Better prediction for COSMO-models (no strong differences between ME and IT)

• ECMWF tendency to forecast low rainfall amounts big overestimation, big false alarms, very low ets, quite good pod

• Better prediction for COSMO-models BUT bad performance during summertime

Driving model comparison: ECMWF/COSMO-ME/COSMO-IT, low thresholds

• Slight bias reduction during latest seasons

• Last winter: all the versions overestimate (probably due to lack of representativeness of the rain gauges over the plain during snowfall)

• Strong COSMO-7 underestimation BUT slight improvement during latest seasons

Seasonal trend - high thresholds

• Low values during summertime

• In general, quite stationary error since son2008 up to now

• All the versions present a jump around son2008: ets increases from 0.2-0.4 up to 0.3-0.5 (cosmo-I7: son2008 introduction of 4.3 version with new T2m diagnostic)

• Skill decreases with forecast time

• Slight far reduction during last two years BUT high values during summer2009 and winter 2010 (probably due to lack of representativeness of the rain gauges over the plain during snowfall)

• Small far increase last spring

• Low probability of detection during intense convective events

• It is noticeable the improvement since son2008 BUT a subsequent worsening during 2009 and the first half of 2010

• Skill decreases with forecast time

• ECMWF difficulty to forecast high rainfall amounts bias around 1 BUT big false alarms, very low ets and pod

• Better prediction for COSMO-models

Driving model comparison: ECMWF/COSMO-ME/COSMO-IT, high thresholds

• ECMWF difficulty to forecast high rainfall amounts bias around 1 BUT big false alarms, very low ets and pod

• Better prediction for COSMO-models

Driving model comparison: ECMWF/COSMO-ME/COSMO-IT, high thresholds

Diurnal cycle - low thresholds

• Little initial spin-up (especially for I7 and I2)

• No strong performance differences among the versions

• Slight diurnal cycle

• Slight worsening with forecast time

Diurnal cycle - high thresholds

• Little initial spin-up vanished with threshold increasing

• No strong performance differences among the versions except COSMO-7 underestimation

• Pronounced worsening with forecast time

COSMO-7 COSMO-I7 COSMO-ME

COSMO-EU COSMO-I2 COSMO-IT

Bias, 10mm/24h

200812-201005

• Systematic overestimation over Alpine areas, especially in the western part and in Veneto/Trentino-Alto Adige (incorrect representation of flow interaction with alpine chain during westerlies and north-easterlies ?)

• COSMO-7 underestimates especially in southern Italy (border of the domain ?)

• COSMO-I7 overestimates the Adriatic areas (especially during north-easterly flow forecasters experience)

• COSMO-I2 underestimates, COSMO-IT overestimates

Far, 10mm/24h

200812-201005

• More false alarms over Sardinia and Alpine areas, especially in the western part and in Veneto/Trentino-Alto Adige (incorrect representation of flow interaction with alpine chain during westerlies and north-easterlies ?)

• More false alarms for COSMO-I7 (and the other ones) over the Adriatic areas (especially during north-easterly flow forecasters experience)

Relative error %, SON 2009

• Too precipitation amount over Alpine areas, especially in the western part and in Veneto/Trentino-Alto Adige (incorrect representation of flow interaction with alpine chain during westerlies and north-easterlies ?)

• Few QPF for COSMO-7, COSMO-I2 and COSMO-IT

• Quite good QPF for COSMO-I7, COSMO-ME and COSMO-EU

Relative error %, DJF 2010

• Few precipitation amount (all the versions except COSMO-I2) in the Padana Plain: very snowy winter also in plain areas where there are no heated rain gauges lack of representativeness

• Few QPF for COSMO-7 in southern Italy

Relative error %, MAM 2010

• Too precipitation amount over Alpine areas, especially in the western part and in Veneto/Trentino-Alto Adige (incorrect representation of flow interaction with alpine chain during westerlies and north-easterlies ?)

• Few QPF for COSMO-7, COSMO-I2 and COSMO-IT

• Quite good QPF for COSMO-I7, COSMO-ME and COSMO-EU

COSMO General Meeting – Moscow 06-10 Sept 2010 Some results from operational verification in Italy...

Documents

Transcript of COSMO General Meeting – Moscow 06-10 Sept 2010 Some results from operational verification in Italy...

F. Grazzini, Forecast Products Users Meeting 15-17 June 2005 SEVERE WEATHER FORECASTS F. Grazzini, F. Lalaurette.

Electromagnetic Shielding€¦ · SALVATORE CELOZZI RODOLFO ARANEO GIAMPIERO LOVAT Electrical Engineering Department ‘‘La Sapienza’’ University Rome, Italy IEEE Press A JOHN

tm463 verif lalaurette - ECMWF · 463 Verification statistics and evaluations of ECMWF forecasts in 2003 - 2004 F. Lalaurette, J. Bidlot, L. Ferranti, A. Ghelli, F. Grazzini, M. Leutbecher,

RELATIONS BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS AND BLOOD DONOR ASSOCIATIONS the Italian experience Giuliano Grazzini, MD Director General National Blood Centre Istituto.

Bayesian Estimation of Agent-Based Models...ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Bayesian Estimation of Agent-Based Models Jakob Grazzini a,b,c, Matteo Richiardi d,e, and Mike Tsionas

ATTACKING THE QB ANTHONY GRAZZINI ELMHURST …. jalkapallo_405... · stab technique – explode of the ... jab-olay power rush 1. saw strike, push/pull, punch 2. hand grab, throw

SCREENING PER IL CARCINOMA COLORETTALE IN TOSCANA Dr.ssa Grazia Grazzini CSPO Istituto Scientifico della Regione Toscana.

INAOE - P€¦ · ELECTROMAGNETIC SHIELDING SALVATORE CELOZZI RODOLFO ARANEO GIAMPIERO LOVAT Wiley Series in Microwave and Optical Engineering Kai Chang, Series Editor

University of Groningen Clinical utility and research ... · flavio noBili 1 *, eric WeSTMan 2, rosalie V. Kogan 3, Joana B. Pereira 2, federico MaSSa 1, Matteo graZZini 1, Sanne

ATTACKING THE QB ANTHONY GRAZZINI ELMHURST COLLETE CPLFCA CLINIC.

by Camillo Grazzini - ERIC • Maria Montessori’s Cosmic Vision, Cosmic Plan, and Cosmic Education 109 also the rocks and the earth or soil), the Water and the …

Dispersed Information and the Origins of Aggregate ... · Dispersed Information and the Origins of Aggregate Fluctuations. Jakob Grazzini . Domenico Massaro . CESIFO WORKING PAPER

D5.1 Cyber physical countermeasure Identification€¦ · Prepared by: Giuseppe Celozzi, Cosimo Zotti (TEI) Approved by: (WP Leader) Marco Carli (RM3) Approved by: (Coordinator) Bruno

Sébastien Grazzini - Eutelsat - ITU€¦ · 2. NAVIGATION & INFORMATION • Map updates • Location-based services • Road safety alerts • Collaborative Road Alerts 4. FLEET

Michelle MacDonald enters appearance for Sandra Grazzini-Rucki

Overview of WG3a activities Upper air physical aspects Federico Grazzini, ARPA Emilia-Romagna Servizio Idro Meteo Clima (SIMC)

The Italian Institutional Accreditation Model · Francesco Niccolai, Sabina Nuti, Federica Vasta Gabriele Calizzani, Giuliano Grazzini, Samantha Profili Giovanni Di Minno, Pier Manuccio

WG6 activities summary and Science Plan - COSMO … activities summary and Science Plan Massimo Milelli ARPA Piemonte ... Training on COSMO Data Assimilation ... See previous slide

Characteristics and Impacts of the arrival of Chinese and Indian Firms in Europe: first evidence Christian Milelli Françoise Hay Copenhagen Business School.

unimi.it Celozzi Stefania.pdf · Created Date: 20200305124544Z