W eather type - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Weather type Dependent Verificationin ItalyAdriano RaspantiMaria Stefania TesiniSlide2

summarySubjective classification at IMSCOSMO-MED verification against synop stations:2m Temperature10 m Wind speedCloud coverTotal Precipitation (6h)COSMO-MED,COSMO-I7,COSMO-I2,ECMWF against high resolution raingauges:Total Precipitation (24h)Slide3

summarySubjective classification at IMSCOSMO-MED verification against synop stations:2m Temperature10 m Wind speedCloud coverTotal Precipitation (6h)

COSMO-MED,COSMO-I7,COSMO-I2,ECMWF against high resolution raingauges

:Total Precipitation (24h)Slide4

Subjective Classification at IMS COSMO GM 2011 - ROMA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11Slide5

Subjective Classification at IMS

COSMO GM 2011 - ROMASlide6

summarySubjective classification at IMSCOSMO-MED verification against synop stations:2m Temperature

10 m Wind speed

Cloud coverTotal Precipitation (6h)

COSMO-MED,COSMO-I7,COSMO-I2,ECMWF against high resolution

raingauges

:

Total Precipitation (24h)Slide7

NCMCCML

CMT

Temperature

Negative bias for all cases. Improvement for CMT and CML in RMSE

All casesSlide8

MCCMLCMT

NC

WIND SPEED

No clear differences

All cases

COSMO GM 2011 - ROMASlide9

Total Cloud CoverCMLCMT

All cases

Less overestimation for CMT. Almost no difference in RMSE or MAESlide10

Total Cloud CoverNCMC

All cases

Improvement in bias for NC and worsening for MC. RMSE the same

COSMO GM 2011 - ROMASlide11

TP 06H FBINCMC

CML

CMT

All cases

Less overestimation for CML case and bias around 1 for many thresholds. Higher overestimation for NC

COSMO GM 2011 - ROMA

FBI = 1

FBI = 1

FBI = 1

FBI = 1

FBI = 1Slide12

TP 06H ETSAll casesNC

MC

CMT

CML

Worse or similar ETS for NC, MC and CMT. Slightly better for CML

COSMO GM 2011 - ROMASlide13

TP 06H FBINCMC

CML

CMT

All cases

Different behaviour for lower and higher thresholds

FBI = 1

FBI = 1

FBI = 1

FBI = 1

FBI = 1Slide14

TP 06H ETSAll casesNC

MC

CMT

CML

Worse or similar ETS for NC, MC and CMT. Slightly better for CML

COSMO GM 2011 - ROMASlide15

summarySubjective classification at IMSCOSMO-MED verification against synop stations:2m Temperature10 m Wind speedCloud coverTotal Precipitation (6h)

COSMO-MED,COSMO-I7,COSMO-I2,ECMWF against high resolution

raingauges

:

Total Precipitation (24h)Slide16

COSMO GM 2011 - ROMADay 1Day 2…Day nArea 1

Area 2

…

Area 96

S

Mean

/

Median

value

of

precipitation

For

each

weather

type

category

:

Daily

scores

Scores

for

the

selected

categorySlide17

2-Zonal Westerly

cyclonicSlide18

4-Meridional

cyclonicSlide19

6-Northerly

cyclonicSlide20

7-Northerly

anticyclonicSlide21

8-Central Mediterranean

HighSlide22

9-Central Mediterranean

RidgeSlide23

10-Central Mediterranean LowSlide24

11-Central Mediterranean

TroughSlide25

2ZWC4MC6NC7NA8

CMH9CMR

10CML11

CMT

ALL

WEST

ALPS

i

n

n

n

h

h

h

h

h

h

nh

hhni

hnnh

hhhhh

hhnh

hinh

hnREAST ALPS

nnh

nn

hh

nn

hnh

n

hin

in

hh

nh

h

h

n

n

n

n

h

n

i

n

n

R

R

R

NORTH

WEST

i

i

n

i

h

h

n

n

h

n

i

h

h

h

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

h

n

n

h

h

h

n

n

n

i

i

R

R

R

R

PO VALLEY

i

i

n

i

h

h

n

i

n

i

i

i

h

h

n

h

n

h

h

h

n

h

h

n

n

n

n

i

h

n

n

n

R

R

n

R

NORTH

APPEN

i

n

n

n

n

h

n

n

n

n

n

n

h

n

h

n

n

h

h

h

n

h

h

h

n

h

h

h

n

n

i

i

R

R

R

R

SOUTH

APPEN

i

i

h

i

i

i

i

i

i

n

i

n

n

i

n

i

i

i

i

i

i

n

i

n

i

n

h

h

n

n

n

n

i

R

R

R

TIRRENIAN COST

i

i

h

i

n

i

n

i

n

i

i

i

n

n

i

n

n

n

n

n

h

n

n

h

h

n

h

i

n

i

i

i

R

R

R

R

ADRIATIC COAST

i

n

n

i

n

n

n

n

n

h

n

n

h

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

i

nnniiiRnnnSOUTHnnnnniiihiinhiinnnnnnhnninhhniihnRRRGloballyiRnnRRRRRRRRhRRnnnnRRhRRRRhRnRiR

ECMWF COSMO-I7 COSMO-MED COSMO-I2

h

overestimation

i

understimation

n

almost

correct

R

variable

behaviourSlide26

Some considerations on the rough estimate of the amount of rainThe dataset does not cover equally all the territory so the results are just an indication It is very difficult to asses the behavior of models in a particular synoptic situation over all the italian region due to complex orography In each area models behave in a different way according to the synoptic situationSlide27

Small dots =

daily scoresBig dots

= scores over the days in each category

All

casesSlide28

Small dots =

daily scoresBig dots

= scores over the days in each category

All

casesSlide29

Small dots

= daily scoresBig

dots = scores over the days in each category

All

casesSlide30

Some considerations on models performances At low threshold (e.g. 1 mm/24h) Cosmo Models perform well in cyclonic situations (CLM,CMT,MC) – high TS and BIAS ≈1but some difficulties in NC ECMWF is strongly biasedIn anticyclonic situation COSMO-MED and ECMWF are better in terms of POD but they tend to overestimate the number of eventsAt higher thresholds (e.g. 5 m/24h and 10 mm/24h)COSMO-I7 and I2 miss the anticyclonic situation (except MA ) still good performance for all models for the cyclonic situation (except for NC)ECMWF reduces the BIAS SCORE Note the different scores for each day of a selected category!!Slide31

ConclusionSynoptic verification of COSMO-MED did not point out significant differences between the selected categoryHigh resolution verification showed differences in the behavior of models over italian regions, according to weather type category, but the results are difficult to interpret The good news is that models are able to reproduce more or less all the type of weather!! Slide32

Thanks for your attention