Priority project « Advanced interpretation and verification of very high resolution models »

Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHAFederal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss

Priority project « Advanced interpretation and verification

of very high resolution models »

2 COSMO General meeting ¦ Cracow, September 2008Pierre.Eckert[at]meteoswiss.ch

Topics

1. Advanced postprocessing of weather parameters

2. Verification of very high resolution models, incl. fuzzy verification methods

3. Hydrological applications

Hydrology (precipitation adaptation):

Presentation by A. Mazur

Snow parametrisation:

Presentation by E. Machulskaya

1. Recognition of weather elements

• Done last year: recognition of thunderstorms with the boosting algorithm:

• Choice of predictors

Perler, Kohli, Walser

1. Kalman filtering of COSMO LEPS

V. Stauch, poster outside

2. Verification of very high resolution models

• 1-3 km scale (VHR)• Focus on precipitation• Is VHR (~2km) better than HR (~7km)?• Model intercomparison• Generate products related to the verification• Way to define the scores could depend on the

application (value)• Use synop, (high resolution rainguage network),

radar, evt. composition of all (gridded observations)

Which rain forecast would you rather use?

Mesoscale model (5 km) 21 Mar 2004

Sydney

Global model (100 km) 21 Mar 2004

Sydney

Motivation

Observed 24h rain

RMS=13.0 RMS=4.6

B. Ebert

Motivation: precipitation pattern

Fuzzy Verification F. Ament

Verification on coarser scales than model scale: “Do not require a point wise match!“

X XX X

X Xx XXX

Method Raw Data Fuzzyfication Score Example result

Upscaling

Average

Equitable threat score

Fraction Skill

Score (Roberts and Lean, 2005)

Fractional coverage

Skill score with reference to

worst forecast

X XX X

X Xx XXX

Expected behaviour of scores

From Nigel Roberts (2005)

Application of scores to a perfect forecast

All scores should equal !

But, in fact, 5 out of 12 do not!

Requested theoretical properties of scores

Avoid « leaking » scores Use illustrative and understandable scores Score should give a real information of the forecast

quality on the different scales Monotonic behavior concerning

• scale (best values for large scales)• frequency of occurrence (best values for high

frequencies of occurrence) Represent some significant characteristics of the PDF

(obs and forecast)

Requested practical properties of scores

Agreement between subjective and objective judgment

Possible help in decision making Correspond to the needs of the users Should be able to provide a comparison between 2km

and 7 km models (also global models) Should not use a matching between prediction and

observation because it would not allow the generation of univocal products

Chosen scores

Our best candidates:

Upscaling and Fraction skill score

Corresponding products

• Upscaling mean around a point / station• Fraction skill score probability to exceed some

threshold in a neighbourhood

Fuzzy Verification: COSMO-DE – COSMO-EU

goodbad

Threshold (mm/3h) Threshold (mm/3h) Threshold (mm/3h)

=-COSMO-EU (7km)COSMO-DE (2.8km) Difference

COSMO-EU better COSMO-DE better

JJA 2007, Verification against Swiss Radar Composite, 3 hourly accumulations

Fuzzy Verification COSMO-2 – COSMO-7

goodbad

Threshold (mm/3h) Threshold (mm/3h) Threshold (mm/3h)

=-COSMO-7 (7km)COSMO-2 (2.2km) Difference

COSMO-7 better COSMO-2 better

JJA 2007, Verification against Swiss Radar Composite, 3 hourly accumulations

Monthly dependencycut-off 03h, accumulation 03h

COSMO-DE -

COSMO-EU

COSMO-2-

COSMO-7

August

Quarterly summaries of „Fuzzy“-scores

FSS Autumn 2007

U. Damrath

Monthly summaries of „Fuzzy“-scores

FSS July 2007

Analysis of precipitation in boxesAnalysis of precipitation in boxes

Average number of stations in each area

( SON 2007)

We devised a verification methodology by aggregating observed and predicted precipitation in boxes of 1°x 1°(labelled boxes in the map)

The choice of the size and position of the areas has been performed according to different rules:

• boxes have to be enough large in order to contain a high number of observation points (ranging from 20 to over 100, depending on location and period of time considered)

• boxes have to be homogeneous as much as possible in terms of geographic-territorial characteristics

M.-S. TesiniM.-S. TesiniC. CacciamaniC. Cacciamani

Box 2 aut2007Box 2 aut2007

25 mm/24

23 mm/24

19 mm/24

90th percentile of “climatological” pdf

Consideration on “day-by-day” Consideration on “day-by-day” behaviour behaviour

• COSMO-I7 seems to be more realistic than ECMWF in reproducing the intra-box variability.

• However, COSMO-I7 presents both a large number of false alarms and high “spikes”. On the other hand, ECMWF presents a greater number of missed alarms, especially for high thresholds.

• According to most standard verification measures, COSMO-I7 forecast would have poor quality, but it might be very valuable to the forecaster since it provides information on the distribution and variability of the rain field over the considered region.

Neighbourhood method P. Kaufmann

• Cylindrical neighbourhood with fading zone

• Settings at MeteoSwiss: • COSMO-7 (6.6 km):

rxy= 5, rf= 5, rt=3

• COSMO-2 (2.2 km): rxy=10, rf=10, rt=1

• Effective radius:• COSMO-7: ~50 km• COSMO-2: ~35 km

12 July: high probabilities match well with precipitation pattern

24 h sum 06 – 06 UTC next day

Probability of 12 h sum above 35 mm

06 – 18 UTC

18 – 06 UTC

15 August: high probabilities match well precipitation pattern

06 – 18 UTC

18 – 06 UTC

17 July: completely missed event

06 – 18 UTC

18 – 06 UTC

Conclusionson verification of very high resoution models

• Results of Upscaling and Fraction skill score are reasonable.• Scores increase with box size, but it is difficult to extract

optimal size by looking at one single model.• Overall better results for very high-res models• This benefits of very high-res models is rather to see in

situations where precipitation variability is large: convection , orography, summer…

• …and at scales of 30 to 50 km• Products can be generated

• Regional means (not new)• Probability to exceed threshold in neighborhood• Or possibly the whole pdf?

Priority project « Advanced interpretation and verification of very high resolution models »

Documents

Hand Written Digit Recognition using Convolutional …academicscience.co.in/admin/resources/project/paper/f...Signature Verification, Postal-Address Interpretation, Bank-Check Processing,

© 2013 Carnegie Mellon University Vinta: Verification with INTerpolation and Abstract interpretation Arie Gurfinkel (SEI/CMU) with Aws Albarghouthi and

Certificated Quality Verification Professionals TCB … · Interpretation of various Codes and Standard ... ASME -Sec IX - Welding ASME Sec V -NDT ... Standard ANSI 31.3 ,31.4

Priority 2018 PRIORITY EXHIBITORS Number Priority …2017.otcnet.org/files/2018_otc_preliminary_priority__list_alpha... · 2018 PRIORITY EXHIBITORS Priority Number Priority Points

2017 C&I Prescriptive Verification - oeb.ca · 2017 C&I Prescriptive Program Verification Report Terminology|ii . Priority Measure Groups: Per the final workplan, the evaluation addressed

Improving Outpatient Flow in a Chemotherapy Infusion Center · Improving Outpatient Flow in a Chemotherapy Infusion Center ... (priority queue) ... • Verification with clinicians

iso5725-2 Standard Application To Verification Of ... · IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA AND IMPERVIOUSNESS FACTOR DETERMINATION ... of photo interpretation as well. ... 000 was applied as

Spring 2014 Program Analysis and Verification Lecture 11: Abstract Interpretation III

Bridge Functions Consortium - UNH InterOperability … · GROUP 1: Frame Queue Verification – Strict Priority ... each frame is associated with a priority Bridge Functions Consortium

Program Analysis and Verificationmaon/teaching/2015-2016/paav/... · Program Analysis and Verification 0368-4479 Noam Rinetzky Lecture 6: Abstract Interpretation 1 Slides credit:

Priority project Advanced interpretation COSMO General Meeting, 18. September 2006 Pierre Eckert

Priority Queue. Priority Queues Queue (FIFO). Priority queue. Deletion from a priority queue is determined by the element priority. Two kinds of priority

Object Retrieval with a Generative Feature Model for Total ...web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~yjlee/teaching/ecs289h-fall2014/TotalRecall.pdf · Spatial Verification ... Create a priority queue

LESSON PLAN - Government Polytechnic College, Ambalagpambala.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Lesson-Plan-Plastic-3rd-Semester.pdf37 Definition, 8 Verification and interpretation of

Spring 2014 Program Analysis and Verification Lecture 9: Abstract Interpretation I

Financial Aid 1213 Verification Priority Groups … Aid – 1213 Verification Priority Groups Presenter: John Nickless, Senior Banner Financial Aid Consultant BANNER VERIFICATION DOCUMENTATION

Evaluating Interpretation & Education: Getting Started · 2. Use established criteria to judge whether the evaluation question serves a priority need, can be realistically addressed

Abstract Interpretation and Program Verification€¦ · Propositional, quantified boolean formulas, first-order theories, Horn clauses … Use of scalable symbolic reasoning techniques

ADVANCE ULTRASONIC ADVANCE ULTRASONIC AUT INSPECTION · used for interpretation of the weld integrity • Pulse echo UT, with zonal discrimination • TOFD, added for verification

Advanced interpretation and verification of very high resolution models National Meteorological Administration 2007-2008 Rodica Dumitrache, Aurelia LUPASCU,