Content-Length: 18249 | pFad | http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/QPF_introduction_lecture/index.htm
Introduction to various QPF Techniques
Forecasting QPF
QPF
HOW MUCH
QUESTIONS TO ASK WHEN PREPARING A SUBJECTIVE QPF
For short range QPF (0-3h to 0-6 hour), we rely heavily on
Automated short range forecasts
Auto-nowcaster provides 0-2 hour place specific forecasts of thunderstorms
Forecast parameters combines using fuzzy logic
A FEW IDEAS TO HELP DETERMINE HOW BIG AN AREA OF RAINFALL TO FORECAST
START BY LOOKING AT SYNOPTIC SCALE (THE BIG PICTURE)
THE CURRENT GENERATION OF MODELS OFTEN HAVE PROBLEMS HANDLING MESOSCALE FEATURES
INTELLIGENT USE OF THE MODEL REQUIRES THAT THE FORECASTER
PATTERN RECOGNITION, IS THIS A MADDOX FRONTAL TYPE EVENT?
BOUNDARY LAYER WIND AND TEMPERATURE FORECAST V.T. 00Z 18 JULY
A STRONG LOW LEVEL JET IS PRESENT WITH LOTS OF MOISTURE
OOZ 18 JULY FORECASTS OF
IS THIS A GOOD QPF? DO YOU THINK THE RAINFALL IS ORIENTED CORRECTLY
REMEMBER TO LOOK FOR LOW-LEVEL BOUNDARIES. NOTICE THE THERMAL GRADIENT OVER IL
HOW DID YOU DO? THIS IS FAIRLY TYPICAL OF OUR HANDLING OF MCCS. WE OFTEN KNOW WHEN ONE WILL FORM BUT USUALLY MISS THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE HEAVIEST RAINFALL.
Initiation: moisture, instability and lifting is needed for deep convection to develop
A number of factors make the QPF associated with mesoscale convective systems very difficult
Why models have forecast problems
Understanding how the physics may impact a forecast is tough because the atmosphere is complicated and acts in a non-linear fashion. For example, whenever the parameterization for convection kicks in, it
Models that have grid spacing that is too wide to allow the explicit handling of convection
In a very unstable airmass, the eta predicts almost 5 inches of rain from “grid scale” processes and less than an inch from its convective parameterization scheme. Does this look reasonable?
Bias for various models during September 2000 for northeast
A few other things that are parameterized are:
Probabilistic QPF
Krzysztofowicz approach
STATISTICAL METHODS THAT CAN BE USED TO DEVELOP PROBABILITIES
PROBABILITIES USING STATISTICAL METHODS ARE WELL CALIBRATED ESPECIALLY FOR LOWER THRESHOLDS.
VERIFICATION BUT DIFFERENT MONTH
STATISTICS METHODS
Sometimes the MOS assumptions can be violated when a model changes
MOS format
VERY USEFUL BUT TREND TOWARDS CLIMATOLOGY AT LONGER RANGES
HPC MEDIUM RANGE PREDICTIONS OF POPS OFTEN IMPROVES ON MOS POPS
Ensemble forecasting
THERE IS ALWAYS UNCERTAINTY IN THE INITIAL CONDITIONS
Importance of initial analysis 12Z Jan 24 Eta 250 mb analysis of speed (color fill) and observed RAOB speed. Note the 62 m/s observation at ATL where the initial analysis thought the speed was 30 m/s
500 Forecasts valid 12Z 25 Jan. 2000 (purple), Observed (orange)
PPT Slide
Eta spread for “Surprise” snowstorm
Total 12h precip (in.) (00Z-12 Jan 25 from 12Z Jan 24
Available on EMC homepage. Look for SREF. Probabilities are uncalibrated!!
Can show where at least 60% of the members exceeded a threshold. Again giving you some idea of the probability of a threshold assuming the model is unbiased
ARPS 3km Forecast - AR Tornadoes
6 February 1999 - Bust!
Forecaster Challenges: Intelligent Use of non-hydrostatic Model Guidance
Because higher amounts or thresholds are relatively rare, it is difficult getting a big enough sample to calibrate forecasts using traditional statistical techniques. Verification of 24 hour QPF for various thresholds
The probability of 1” in 6 hours (heavy rainfall) is low (from Charba 1985).
NOTE LOGARITHMIC DECAY OF RAINFALL RATES
The HPC bias for light amounts is a little too high, the bias for .50” or greater in any 6 hour period is too low
Accuracy decreases rapidly as threshold increases and as the scale of the event decreases
Then how do we approach forecasting extreme rainfall , Probabilistically?
So how do I predict subjectively quantitative precipitation. There is no one magic method. What works for light amounts may not work for heavier ones
Statistical methods for predicting QPF References
Statistical methods for predicting QPF References (continued)
References that apply to QPF
Email: njunker@ncep.noaa.gov
Home Page: http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/res2.html
Download presentation source
Fetched URL: http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/QPF_introduction_lecture/index.htm
Alternative Proxies:
Alternative Proxy
pFad Proxy
pFad v3 Proxy
pFad v4 Proxy