Evaluation of the 29-km Eta Model. Part I: Objective Verification at Three Selected Stations
- 1 February 1999
- journal article
- Published by American Meteorological Society in Weather and Forecasting
- Vol. 14 (1) , 5-17
- https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(1999)014<0005:eotkem>2.0.co;2
Abstract
This paper describes an objective verification of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction 29-km Eta Model from May 1996 through January 1998. The evaluation was designed to assess the model’s surface and upper-air point forecast accuracy at three selected locations during separate warm (May–August) and cool (October–January) season periods. In order to enhance sample sizes available for statistical calculations, the objective verification includes two consecutive warm and cool season periods. The statistical evaluation identified model biases that result from inadequate parameterization of physical processes. However, since the model biases are relatively small compared to the random error component, most of the total model error results from day-to-day variability in the forecasts and/or observations. To some extent, these nonsystematic errors reflect the variability in point observations that sample spatial and temporal scales of atmospheric phenomena that cannot be resolved by the mo... Abstract This paper describes an objective verification of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction 29-km Eta Model from May 1996 through January 1998. The evaluation was designed to assess the model’s surface and upper-air point forecast accuracy at three selected locations during separate warm (May–August) and cool (October–January) season periods. In order to enhance sample sizes available for statistical calculations, the objective verification includes two consecutive warm and cool season periods. The statistical evaluation identified model biases that result from inadequate parameterization of physical processes. However, since the model biases are relatively small compared to the random error component, most of the total model error results from day-to-day variability in the forecasts and/or observations. To some extent, these nonsystematic errors reflect the variability in point observations that sample spatial and temporal scales of atmospheric phenomena that cannot be resolved by the mo...Keywords
This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: