|نسخه تمام متن
|11 صفحه PDF
• Extrapolation of observed cloud fields performs better scores than NWP modelling for the first 2 forecasted hours.
• NWP modelling of convective clouds outperforms extrapolation from the 4th forecasted hour.
• Modelled precipitation is equal or more accurate than extrapolation of observation.
An evaluation of convective cloud forecasts performed with the numerical weather prediction (NWP) model COSMO and extrapolation of cloud fields is presented using observed data derived from the geostationary satellite Meteosat Second Generation (MSG). The present study focuses on the nowcasting range (1–5 h) for five severe convective storms in their developing stage that occurred during the warm season in the years 2012–2013. Radar reflectivity and extrapolated radar reflectivity data were assimilated for at least 6 h depending on the time of occurrence of convection. Synthetic satellite imageries were calculated using radiative transfer model RTTOV v10.2, which was implemented into the COSMO model. NWP model simulations of IR10.8 μm and WV06.2 μm brightness temperatures (BTs) with a horizontal resolution of 2.8 km were interpolated into the satellite projection and objectively verified against observations using Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), correlation coefficient (CORR) and Fractions Skill Score (FSS) values. Naturally, the extrapolation of cloud fields yielded an approximately 25% lower RMSE, 20% higher CORR and 15% higher FSS at the beginning of the second forecasted hour compared to the NWP model forecasts. On the other hand, comparable scores were observed for the third hour, whereas the NWP forecasts outperformed the extrapolation by 10% for RMSE, 15% for CORR and up to 15% for FSS during the fourth forecasted hour and 15% for RMSE, 27% for CORR and up to 15% for FSS during the fifth forecasted hour. The analysis was completed by a verification of the precipitation forecasts yielding approximately 8% higher RMSE, 15% higher CORR and up to 45% higher FSS when the NWP model simulation is used compared to the extrapolation for the first hour. Both the methods yielded unsatisfactory level of precipitation forecast accuracy from the fourth forecasted hour onward.
Journal: Atmospheric Research - Volume 184, 1 February 2017, Pages 24–34