Wednesday morning we talked about severe reports. Is “practically perfect” the way to go? How do we deal with people-sparse regions? Can or should we add an uncertainty to the location and time and veracity of each report?<\/p>\n
With our current capability, we can’t reliably forecast whether a storm will be a wind or hail producer. I think that is what John Hart suggested.<\/p>\n
Yesterday, the 0-4Z forecast ensemble was too eager to produce high updraft helicity severe weather for the first 20-0Z forecast period, but the 0-4 Z period was forecast almost perfectly. Ryan said UH is usually better than surface wind and hail (graupel).<\/p>\n
The MODE area ratio is not as useful as area “bias”. Ratio is small-over-big and doesn’t tell you if the forecast is biased high or low. <\/p>\n
I summarized bias, GSS, and MODE results for yesterday. For CSI, Radar assimilation jumped out to an early lead, but joined the control run at near-zero after 3 hours. MODE had some spotty matches, but no clear winner.<\/p>\n
Dave Ahijevych<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Wednesday morning we talked about severe reports. Is “practically perfect” the way to go? How do we deal with people-sparse regions? Can or should we add an uncertainty to the… <\/p>\n