We found that the use of probability fields, by themselves, provided little additional information. In many cases analysis of the individual runs found that each model tended to cluster around the respective parent run. In one event, 4 out of 5 RSM members and 6 out of 6 WRF members produced precipitation in Sioux City, Iowa while only 1 of 10 Eta members produced precipitation, with a resultant 50 percent chance for precipitation. It appeared that the differences between members were the result of systematic model errors rather than inherent unpredictability. The inability to remove members that are determined to have a low probability of occurrence places equal weight on all 21 members. It is thus theorized that examination of SREF mean and probabilities, especially QPF, without knowledge of each individual member's performance, provides little additional information to aid in the forecast process, and in the case above, results in degradation of the forecast.
Ensemble forecasts can play an important role the first 24 to 72 h of the forecast. However, use of mean and probability fields by themselves can slow the recognition of significant events due to averaging of both the likely and the less likely members. After assessing the dynamics and thermodynamics from the deterministic models, we propose that forecasters can examine individual members and remove the members that appear least likely to occur. Mean and probability fields can then be calculated from this subset to help forecast snow and QPF amounts.
- Indicates paper has been withdrawn from meeting
- Indicates an Award Winner