Transcript A Brief Overview of NCEP SREF: ?

A Brief Overview of NCEP SREF:
Where are we and where are we heading?
Jun Du, Geoff DiMego, Zoltan Toth,
Jeff McQueen and Binbin Zhou
Acknowledgements: Eric Rogers, Tom Black, Geoff Manikin, Brad Ferrier,
Dusan Jovic, Matt Pyle, Hui-Ya Chuang, Henry Juang, Jongil Han, Zavisa
Janjic, George Gayno, Kenneth Mitchell, NCO stuff as well as Stephen Lord
and Louis Uccellini
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/mmb/SREF/SREF.html
(NCEP Ensemble User Workshop, Oct. 31 – Nov. 2, 2006)
1.How to capture uncertainties
(ensemble system design)
2. How to convey forecast uncertainty
(ensemble products and data)
3. Downstream applications of the SREF
(driving other prediction systems)
4. Verification
(1) To Capture Uncertainty
*Atmospheric IC uncertainty:
(1) Multi-analysis (GFS and NAM)
(2) Perturbed analysis: bred vector (current), ET (ongoing/2007),
and ET with DA-based rescaling (future, work with Mozheng Wei)
*Atmospheric LBC uncertainty:
(1) different LBCs for different members simply provided by
various NCEP global ensemble members
(2) plan to work on how to better couple LBC and IC in future
*Lower boundary/Earth surface forcing uncertainty:
(1) Land surface: currently not perturbed but soil moisture
perturbation design is underway -- first a simple approach (Du, 2007)
and then might be an ET-like approach in near future
(2) Water/sea surface temperature, flux etc.: (currently not
perturbed)
*Upper boundary uncertainty from space????
Small domain: 500H spread, May 19, 1998, Eta32, 5 members
f00
f12
f24
f36
Perturb both IC & LBC
perturb LBC only
perturb IC only
3h-apcp forecast with WRF_ARW model
with NAM soil moisture
Diff between the two forecasts (“nam” - “gfs”)
with GFS soil moisture
Within WRF_NMM model:
Impact on T2m is significant!
With nam soil moisture (NMM)
T2m diff (namSM – gfsSM, NMM)
With gfs soil moisture (NMM)
T2m -- impact comparison (NMM):
Soil moisture impact on T2m is bigger
Than that of IC and of model difference!
different IC (NMM; namSM)
Diff soil moisture (nam – gfs; NMM)
different models (nmm vs. arw; namSM)
*Model uncertainty (both dynamics and physics):
(1) multi-model: Eta, RSM, WRF-NMM, WRF-ARW (current),
plan to replace Eta and RSM members with all WRF members in 2008
(issue: how important will the diversity of model dynamics be?)
(disadvantage: difficult to maintain; different model has different bias)
(2) multi-physics: GFS, Eta, MM5, BMJ/SAT, KF/DET, SAS/RAS
(current), diversity in LSM, cloud, PBL, radiation as well as WRFGFS, WRF-RUC in near future [disadvantage: don’t produce enough
spread in larger scale (Du) and cannot maintain extra spread after a
certain time length (according to Peter H.)]
(3) stochastic physics: currently an ongoing research on NCEP global
ensemble (Dingchen Hou) and could be adopted to SREF once it’s
ready. (issue: can stochastic physics alone perform as well as or
exceed what multi-model and multi-physics ensemble can currently
provide in a consistent manner?)
RSM Error
Corr. Coeff.
Accuracy of probabilistic forecast measured by RPSS and Reliability
Before introducing “physics diversity”
After introducing “physics diversity”
Cold season case 1 (09z, March 5, 2004): spgt charts comparison at 39h fcst
Before physics diversity (988mb)
After physics diversity (988mb)
Warm season: June and July, 2004
PAR SREF
OPS SREF
SLP
500H
Par: - - - - Opl: -------850T
250U
850U
850RH
41-case averaged outlier rate at all fcst lead time
Cold season case 1(09z, March 5, 2004): ens spread comparison at 63h fcst: similar
OPS/12h-apcp
OPS/SLP
PAR/12h-apcp
PAR/SLP
Sensitivity Experiment on IC vs Physics (Experiment I)
IC-ensemble
PHY-ensemble
Eta_BMJ_ctl
Eta_BMJ_n1
Eta_BMJ_p1
Eta_BMJ_n2
Eta_BMJ_p2
Eta_BMJ_n3
Eta_BMJ_p3
Eta_BMJ_ctl
Eta_KFc_ctl
Eta_SAT_ctl
Eta_DET_ctl
Eta_CON_ctl
Eta_Fer_ctl
Eta_RAS_ctl
IC-ensemble spread (SLP at 63h)
PHY-ensemble spread (SLP at 63h)
More sensitive to IC pert than PHY
Diversity in general except for the
Cyclone region where is more convective
PHY-ensemble mean 63h fcst (SLP)
IC-ensemble spread (12h-apcp at 63h)
PHY-ensemble spread (12h-apcp at 63h)
Similar sensitivity to both IC pert and to
PHY Diversity for precip in general.
PHY diversity enhances sensitivity in
Convective areas.
PHY-ensemble mean 63h fcst (12h-apcp)
IC-ensemble spread (CAPE at 63h)
PHY-ensemble spread (CAPE at 63h)
Equally sensitive to IC pert and PHY
Diversity for CAPE (focusing different
Sub-regions though)
PHY-ensemble mean 63h fcst (CAPE)
Besides dealing with the uncertainties in initial state, external forcing,
governing laws and numerical methods as discussed above
*Residual Part (either uncounted or over estimated
uncertainties): post processing to calibrate ensemble
system to have a reliable probabilistic forecast. Currently,
work is going on only for the 1st-moment (statistical
decaying average by Cui and dynamical/flowdependent dual-resolution approach by Du (2007).
BMA-type approach is planned to be tested in future for
the 2nd- and higher moments (Toth); Huiling Yuan of GSD
(former FSL) is also working on a bias correction method
for the SREF.
Post-processing with Hybrid-Ensembling appraoch (Du, 2004): fcst error of 21-mem ens mean
of 500mb H at 3.5 days
Raw SREF fcst error
Hybrid SREF fcst error
Without extra observation within uncertainty source area:
f00
F51 – targeted time
With Extra observation within uncertainty source area (uncertainty reduced):
f00
F51 – targeted time
21z, May 11, 2005 SREF SLP spread forecast (current cycle)
Without extra observation within uncertainty source area:
With extra observation within uncertainty source area:
rms error of SLP by ensemble mean forecast (error reduced in targeted region)
SREF Configuration
• 21 members (5 Eta_bmj, 5 Eta_kf, 5 RSM, 3
WRF_nmm, 3 WRF_arw  about 10 WRF_nmm & 10
WRF_arw in 2008)
• 32-45km  32km for all members (2007)  20-25km
(2009)
• Four cycles per day (03,09,15,21z)  00,06,12,18z in
future
• 3hrly output to 87hr each cycle (possibly hourly output
in future)
• Three output domains: CONUS, Alaska and
Pacific/Hawaii
(2) To Convey Uncertainty
SPC first-ever Day-2 “High Risk” outlook for
April 7, 2006’s “over 60 tornadoes” event
SPC’s Significant Tornado Probability forecast
Derived from SREF (David Bright)
Subject: SREF and the sig tornado event last Friday
From: David Bright [email protected]
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:44:12 -0500
To: Jun Du [email protected]
Hi Jun,
I wanted to show you the image SREF attached. This is an experimental parameter one
of the forecasters is testing and it's definitely not ready for prime time (i.e., I'm not
convinced its formulation is entirely defensible at this point, and its false alarm ratio has
yet to be determined!). But, this F039 hour SREF forecast from last Thursday (09 UTC
SREF 6 April 2006) shows the primary significant tornado threat centered over nrn AL,
nrn MS, and parts of TN (with SREF mean 850 mb height overlaid).The SREF played a
large part in the first ever Day 2 "HIGH RISK" outlook ever issued by the SPC
(http://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/outlook/archive/2006/day2otlk_20060406_1730.html).
Of course, other deterministic models, climatology, and forecaster experience were
involved in the decision process, but the SREF played a key role. Again, this product
only in the evaluation stage, but I thought you'd be interested nonetheless.
David
Louis Uccellini wrote:
Joe/Russ: Between this SREF result, the first time Day 2 High Risk and the 1.0 POD for
over 60 tornadoes, I think it is time to celebrate in a big way. I recommend that you
guys need to put together a one pager and work with Dennis and Carmeyia to highlight
this historic accomplishment(s).
Louis
Subject:SREF done good!
From:Richard Grumm [email protected]
Date:Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:24:26 -0500
To:Jun Du [email protected]
Jun,
Hello, hope you are doing well. The recent event of 22-23
January was another good example of the SREF doing
quite well with PTYPE issues. Humans, like the 2-3
April 2005 event did not heed the guidance.
FYI
http://nws.met.psu.edu/severe/2006/23Jan2006.pdf
Rich
Ensemble Product type in
general:
1. single outcome: mean, median,
mode, extremes
2. uncertainty: spread, confidence
factor
3. distribution: probability,
spaghetti, meteogram, postage
stamps, clustering
SREF Product list (GRIB-ext)
Mean&spread(11)
T (2m, 850,700mb)
T-H-index(2m)
SLP
W(10m,850,250mb)
RH(850,700mb)
Thickness(1000-850mb
850-700mb
1000-500mb)
Hgt(500mb, 250mb)
APCP(3,6,12,24hr)
Dominant precp(3hr)
Snowfall(3,6,12,24hr)
Instability (CAPE,LI,IN)
Probability(15)
T2m>(75,80,85,90,100F)
T-H-Index>(70,75,80,85,90F)
Td2m>(50,60,70,80,90F)
W10m>(15,20,25,34,50 kn)
CAPE>(500,1000,2000,3000,4000J/kg)
LI < (0,-4,-8 K)
3hr-apcp > (0.1,0.25,0.5,1.0, 2.0in)
6hr-apcp > (0.1,0.25,0.5,1.0, 2.0in)
12hr-apcp > (0.1,0.25,0.5,1.0, 2.0in)
24hr-apcp > (0.1,0.25,0.5,1.0, 2.0in)
Precip types (rain, frozen-rain, snow)
3hr-snowfall > (1,2.5,5,10,20 in)
6hr-snowfall > (1,2.5,5,10,20 in)
12hr-snowfall > (1,2.5,5,10,20 in
24hr-snowfall > (1,2.5,5,10,20 in)
Spaghetti(12)
Surface pressure=(976,984,…..1008,1016mb)
T2m=(-35,-30,..-5,0, 5,…30,35C)
500mb-hgt=(5220,5280,….5820,5880m)
T850mb=(-15,-10,-5,0,5,10,15C)
1000-850mb thickness=(1240,1280,…1360m)
850-700mb thickness=(1480,1500,…1560m)
1000-500mb thickness=(5160,5280,…5640m)
CAPE=(500,1000,2000,3000,4000 J/kg)
3hr-apcp=(0.1,0.25,0.5,1.2 in)
6hr-apcp=(0.1,0.25,0.5,1.2 in)
12hr-apcp=(0.1,0.25,0.5,1.2 in)
24hr-apcp=(0.1,0.25,0.5,1.2 in)
■ SREF Aviation product List (Binbin)
Variables (14)
Icing
Products
Prob of occurrence
Levels/Regions
Algorithms
FL240,180,150,120
T-RH-Vertical drift
090,060,030,FL000
Clear air turbulence (CAT)
Prob of occ (LGT,MDT,SVR)
FL420,390,360,330
Ellrod 1992
300,270,240,FL210
Cloud
Mean/spread
Ceiling, cloud base
Model-output
Prob of ovc,sct,bkn,clr
Visibility
Mean/spread
Surface
Stoelinga 1999
Ceiling
Mean/spread
Ceiling, cloud base
Conditional
Flight-Restriction
Prob of LIFR,IFR,MVFR,VFR
Vis and/or Ceiling
Visibility-ceiling
Jet-stream
Prob of >60,80,100 kt
4500, 18000, 34000 ft.
Model-output
10m-wind speed
Mean/spread
10m
Model-output
Prob of >10,20,30 kt
Convective cloud
Mean/spread/directions
Grid convective cloud
Low level wind shear
(LLWS)
Mean/spread
Wind vector difference
Prob of severe (20 kt/2000 ft)
Tropopause
Mean/spread
Freezing-level
Mean/spread
Sfc, 4000, 8000, 12000,
16000
Model-output
Fog
Prob of occurrence
Surface
Cloud base/top threshold
Mountain obscuration
Prob of occurrence
Mountains
RH ≥ 80%, 90%
to be added
Model-output
Cloud water/ice/snow
Transition?
• Currently, all those ensemble products
are generated using an ensemble
product generator code
• In future, they should be generated using
NAWIPS ensemble functionality package
Field Forecasters like SREF web
products
•
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:40:15 +0000
•
From: David Eastlack <[email protected]>
•
Subject: SREF web page
•
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Greetings, I felt compelled this morning to send a message of
appreciation for your outstanding SREF web site! We peruse the
SREF products regularly, and find them a beneficial part of the
forecast process. Once again, great work! I hope that it will be
possible, sometime in the near future, to have products such as
these considered operational. We do realize though that since
this is an experimental page, it is not guaranteed to be always
updated. Again, thanks and great work!
Dave Eastlack – MET WFO - OAX (Omaha, NE)
The problem is that
• It’s not operational but run at personal
account (not reliable)
• Solution is that it needs to be transferred
to NCO (a user survey strongly supports
this)
Survey announcement (09/08/2006)
List:
Since the current SREF web page (http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/mmb/SREF/SREF.html)
is a developement display tool in nature and not operational, it's not 100% reliable
to users and not friendly enough. As you may also know that NCO has developed an
official operational SREF web (http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/nwprod/analysis/)
but not enough products on it currently. However, the former should be eventually
replaced by the later for everybody's good.
There will be an ensemble user workshop at NCEP from Oct. 31 -Nov. 2 this year.
Zoltan suggested that we gether a list of products which field forecasters use from
SREF before the workshop. As a first step, you might compare my current personal
SREF page and the NCEP official page to let us know what products need to be
transferred to the official page. Surely, you can also request whatever you might
want to see.
Although I received emails from forecasters from time to time about the SREF web
products, I didn't keep a track of it (such as a forecaster from Texas area requested
the Post Stamp charts, but I couldn't recall his email address). So, please circulate
this servey to field forecasters where you see proper. Remember that this servey
should be done before Oct. 27. So, please act as soon as you can.
Thanks a lot.
Jun
Subject: Re: [Fwd: SREF web products servey]
From: Jon Zeitler [email protected]
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 11:36:00 -0500
To: Peter Manousos <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Jun/Pete,
FYI, I was the one requesting the postage stamp graphics.
Transferring Jun's personal page to the operational version
is exactly what I would like to see (except of course
anything still in development). The postage stamps,
ability to select thresholds for the spaghetti charts, and
the probability. Eventually, it would be nice to get
these into AWIPS like the GFSEnsemble data we currently
receive.
Many thanks,
_____________________________________________
Jon W. Zeitler Science and Operations Officer
National Weather Service
Austin/San Antonio Weather Forecast Office
2090 Airport Road
New Braunfels TX 78130 USA
From [email protected]
John,
Sally forwarded your email to me since she knows I look at the SREF on a consistent
basis. When I am trying to forecast QPF/probabilities/timing
in addition to looking at forcing and RH, I use the QPF probabilities
provided by the model and IMHO have found these to work better than MOS
when strictly looking at QPF POPs and timing for my developing of a
forecast. Also, I use the instability and kinematic fields when trying
to forecast whether or not the possibility exists and/or the magnitude
of severe weather in the 12-60 hr period. One improvement I suggest is
to have more forcing/upward vertical velocity field products. This
would help specifically in terms of cap erosion forecasting and
stratiform QPF, but most importantly in the forecasting process in
general.
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: SREF web products servey]
From: Seth Binau <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:22:57 -0500
To: Jun Du <[email protected]>
CC: Dan Baumgardt <[email protected]>
Jun,
Thanks for the opportunity for the field to provide some input on SREF. We use SREF heavily in our office, and
continue to increase our use as more and more. While I use the NCO SREF page a great deal, I do prefer your
page due to the wide array of products not available on NCO's page.
If NCO takes this over explicitly...there are some products we would like them to make available as listed below...
As far as PROBABILITY...
1) 3/6/12/24 hour precipitation and snowfall with the thresholds you have (0.01"...0.10"...0.25"....0.50" etc)
2) precipitation type (rain/sleet/frozen/snow/)
3) CAPE/CINH
As far as Mean & Spread
1) MSLP
2) 850T
3) 500 Hght and Vorts
4) Precipitation (3/6/12/24 hr) (mean)
5) Snowfall (3/6/12/24 hr) (mean)
6) Precipitable Water
7) Instability
As far as SPAGHETTI (all thresholds you have)
1) MSLP
2) 850T
3) 500 Heights
4) Precipitation (3/6/12/24 hr)
As far as Individual Members (stamp charts)
1) MSLP
2) 850T
3) 500 Hght and Vorts
4) Precipitation (3/6/12/24 hr)
5) Precipitable Water
6) CAPE/CINH
Thanks for providing such great support to the field!
Seth Binau, NWS ARX
Subject: Re: SREF web products servey
From: Dan Baumgardt [email protected]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:39:47 -0500
To: Jun Du [email protected]
Jun Du –
I STRONGLY agree that your SREF maintained site should migrate
to operational!! The data is great that you have and be AT LEAST
the starting point for the ops version!
We are using these data heavily! October 7 is the last data - oh no!
Thanks!
Dan Baumgardt - KC9IWM
Science and Operations Officer
National Weather Service
N2788 County Road FA, La Crosse, WI 54601
Phone: (608)784-8275 x766 Fax: (608)784-8238
Email: [email protected]
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/arx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: SREF web products servey]
From: David Zaff [email protected]
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:53:17 +0000
CC: "jun.du >> Jun Du" <[email protected]>
Jun,
I like the AniS java applet on the official page. It'd be nice
if you could add a "framelabel" section with date/time
stamps so when one zooms in/out we'll have some clue as
to where we are in the forecast. The probability graphics
are a big hit in the BUF office, particularly with precip.
Nice job. These and other ensemble charts really
opened our eyes to some of the utilities to ensemble
forecasting.
Dave
Subject: SREF request followup from 8 Sept 2006
From: Walter Drag [email protected]
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 06:43:53 -0400
To: Jun Du [email protected]
CC: David Vallee [email protected]
Good morning Jun,
Surveying our Taunton (KBOX) office, we would like to see some of
the following added to the NCO SREF page.
Probability of sustained winds greater than 33 knots (marine
assistance) every 3 hrs out to 87 hours.
Probability of 24 hour snowfall (0.1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 inches).
Walter Drag
cc: Our KBOX Science and Operations Officer - David Vallee
Subject: Re: SREF web products servey
From: James A Nelson [email protected]
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:10:45 -0800
To: Jun Du [email protected]
Jun,
In Alaska, we would like to see the same data you have on your
web site to be carried to the NCO web site. There is no SREF data
for AK on the NCO Site.
As far as additional probability fields, I would recommend a CAPE
value > 200 as well as a wind speed greater than 63 kt. The CAPE
value seems to be a good indicator of convection in AR. At least for the
Anchorage forecast area. The wind speed greater than 63 kt speaks to
the hurricane force wind warnings for our marine areas.
Jim (Alaska Region)
Subject: Re: SREF web products servey
From: Jeff Craven [email protected]
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:31:35 -0500
To: Jun Du [email protected]
Jun Du...thanks for asking.
Probability of exceedance charts are extremely useful.
Surface Visibility < 1/2 mile
10m Winds (sustained) >15, >20, >25, >34, >50 knots
10m Gusts (mean wind in mixed layer >25, >35, >50, >64 knots
850 mb Temps <0, <-2, <-5
Sfc Temp <32, <28, <24, <0
Sfc Temp >90, >100
Sfc Td >55, >60, >65, >70, >75
12 hour Precip >0.01, >0.10, >0.25, >0.50, >1.00, >2.00
24 hour Precip same as above
CAPE >0, >250, >500, >1000, >2000, >3000
0-6 km Shear >20 knots, >30 knots, >40 knots, >50 knots
0-1 km Shear >15 knots, >20 knots, >25 knots, >30 knots
Combination of CAPE >500, 0-6 shear >40 knots, and Conv Precip >0.01
Combination of CAPE>1000, same as above
Combination of CAPE >2000, same as above
Combination of CAPE >1000, 0-6 shear >30 knots, and Conv Precip >0.01
Combination of CAPE >2000, same as above
Combination of CAPE >3000, same as above
Combination of CAPE >1000, 0-6 shear >20 knots, and Conv Precip >0.01
Combination of CAPE >2000, same as above
Combination of CAPE >3000, same as above
Combination of 2m RH <30%, 10m wind >15 mph, 2m temp >60
Probability of Precip Type
Snow, Freezing Rain, Ice Pellets, Rain
Mean and Standard Deviation
Precipitable Water
1000-500 mb RH
850 RH, 700 RH, 500 RH, 300 RH
12 hour QPF
12 hour Snow
Surface PMSL
850 mb temp
850 mb Td
surface Td (2 m)
surface temp (2 m)
surface wind (10 m)
700 mb temp
500 mb temp
500 mb Height
850 mb wind
500 mb wind
250 mb wind
Jeff Craven, SOO Sullivan/Milwaukee WI
SREF data
• Raw data, 2-year archive at NCEP
supercomputer (accessible to NCEP service
centers)
• ftp site: mean/spread/prob as well as individual
members of selected variables in grib1 format
(e.g. Penn State office; to public)
• NOMADS (e.g. Stony Brook etc.; to public)
• NAWIPS 2007 (all WFOs)
SREF
Grib Mean/Spread Products
Mean and spread Parameters
2m Temperature
10m U, Vwind
Total precipitation(3,6,12,24hr)
Convective Avail. Pot. Energy
Convective inhibition (CIN)
Storm RElative Helicity (SREH)
Lifted Index
Sea Level Pressure
Pressure
Categorical rain *
Dominant precip type (over 3hr)*
12hrly Large scale Snow Fall*
12hrly Snow Depth*
12hrly Accumulated Snow Fall
Absolute vorticity*
Geopotential height
Relative humidity
U, V- wind
Temperature
Thickness
Total preciptable water
Units
[K]
[m/s]
[kg/m2]
[J/kg]
[J/kg]
[m2/s2]
[K]
[Pa]
[Pa]
[y/n]
[1-7]
[kg/m2]
[kg/m2]
[kg/m2]
[/s]
[gpm]
[%]
[m/s]
[K]
[gpm]
Level
Sfc
10 m
Sfc
(*= not in Spread files)
0-3000 m
0-30 mb abv grnd
Sfc
1000-50 mb (every 50 mb) ?
Sfc
Sfc
Sfc
Sfc
Sfc
1000-50 mb (every 50 mb)?
1000-50 mb (every 50 mb)?
1000-50 mb (every 50mb)?
1000-50 mb (every 50 mb)
1000-50 mb (every 50 mb)?
1000-850, 1000-500, 850-700mb
SREF
probabilistic products
Probabilistic Parameters
Convective Avail. Pot. Energy
Convective Inhibition (CIN)
Storm Relative Helicity (SREH)
Lifted Index
Precipitation (3, 6, 12, 24 hr)
12hrly Accumulated Snow Fall
Prob precip type is rain
Prob precip type is freezing rain
Prob precip type is snow or sleet
Units
[J/kg]
[J/kg]
[m2/s2]
[K]
[Inches]
[Inches]
[%]
[%]
[%]
Threshold____________
≥ 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000
≤ -50, -100, -200, -300, -400
≥ 100, 150, 200, 250, 300
≤ 0, -2, -4, -6, -8
≥ 0.1, 0.25,0.5, 1.0, 2.0
≥ 1, 2.5, 5, 10, 20
SREF Variables at NAWIPS/2007
Means/Spreads
•
Heights at 1000, 850, 700, 500, 250 mb
•
U+V at 1000, 850, 700, 500, 250 mb & 10 m
•
Temperature 850, 700, 500 mb & 2 m
•
Dew Point (RH) 850, 700, 500 mb & 2 m
•
QPF at 3, 6, 12 and 24 hour totals
•
12-hr Snowfall
•
Sea Level Pressure
•
Precipitable Water
Probabilistic Fields
•
3-hr/6-hr QPF
GE .01”, .25”, .50”, 1.0”
•
12-hr/24-hr QPF
•
12-hr Snowfall
•
Temperature at 2 m & 850 mb LE 0oC
•
10 m Wind
GE 25 kt, 34 kt, 50 kt
•
CAPE
GE 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000
•
Lifted Index
LE 0, -4, -8
•
Surface Visibility
LE 1 mi, 3 mi
•
Cloud Ceiling
•
Probability of precipitation types (have rain, frozen, & freezing)
•
6-hr/12-hr/24-hr QPF Best Category
GE 01”, .25”, .50”, 1.0”, 2.0”
GE 1”, 4”, 8”, 12” (have 2.5, 5, 10, 20”)
LE 500 ft, 1000 ft, 3000 ft
3. Downstream Applications of
SREF
• DTRA dispersion model (HPAC/SCIPUFF,
Jeff McQueen, Patrick Hayes, Steve
Hanna and PSU/David Stauffer)
• SREF drives Air Quality Forecast system
(research, a student of Prof. Eugenia
Kalnay from UMD, Ms. Debra Baker, is
working with us now)
• Hydrology in future?
4. Verification
• Grid2grid package (against analysis,
current)
• Grid2obs package (fvs, against station
obs, current)
• Unified package in plan (lead by Toth and
Geoff. Yuejian will have a presentation on
this from global ensemble/NAEFS side)
Thank You and Looking forward to work with you in times to come!