The Method for Object-based Diagnostic Evaluation (MODE) applied to numerical forecasts from the 2005 NSSL/SPC Spring Program

AMS Citation:
Davis, C. A., B. G. Brown, R. G. Bullock, and J. E. Halley-Gotway, 2009: The Method for Object-based Diagnostic Evaluation (MODE) applied to numerical forecasts from the 2005 NSSL/SPC Spring Program. Weather and Forecasting, 24, 1252-1267, doi:10.1175/2009WAF2222241.1.
Resource Type:article
Title:The Method for Object-based Diagnostic Evaluation (MODE) applied to numerical forecasts from the 2005 NSSL/SPC Spring Program
Abstract: The authors use a procedure called the method for object-based diagnostic evaluation, commonly referred to as MODE, to compare forecasts made from two models representing separate cores of the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model during the 2005 National Severe Storms Laboratory and Storm Prediction Center Spring Program. Both models, the Advanced Research WRF (ARW) and the Nonhydrostatic Mesoscale Model (NMM), were run without a traditional cumulus parameterization scheme on horizontal grid lengths of 4 km (ARW) and 4.5 km (NMM). MODE was used to evaluate 1-h rainfall accumulation from 24-h forecasts valid at 0000 UTC on 32 days between 24 April and 4 June 2005. The primary variable used for evaluation was a ?total interest? derived from a fuzzy-logic algorithm that compared several attributes of forecast and observed rain features such as separation distance and spatial orientation. The maximum value of the total interest obtained by comparing an object in one field with all objects in the comparison field was retained as the quality of matching for that object. The median of the distribution of all such maximum-interest values was selected as a metric of the overall forecast quality. Results from the 32 cases suggest that, overall, the configuration of the ARW model used during the 2005 Spring Program performed slightly better than the configuration of the NMM model. The primary manifestation of the differing levels of performance was fewer false alarms, forecast rain areas with no observed counterpart, in the ARW. However, it was noted that the performance varied considerably from day to day, with most days featuring indistinguishable performance. Thus, a small number of poor NMM forecasts produced the overall difference between the two models.
Subject(s):Numerical weather prediction/forecasting
Peer Review:Refereed
Copyright Information:Copyright 2009 American Meteorological Society (AMS). Permission to use figures, tables, and brief excerpts from this work in scientific and educational works is hereby granted provided that the source is acknowledged. Any use of material in this work that is determined to be "fair use" under Section 107 or that satisfies the conditions specified in Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law (17 USC, as revised by P.L. 94-553) does not require the Society's permission. Republication, systematic reproduction, posting in electronic form on servers, or other uses of this material, except as exempted by the above statements, requires written permission or license from the AMS. Additional details are provided in the AMS Copyright Policies, available from the AMS at 617-227-2425 or Permission to place a copy of this work on this server has been provided by the AMS. The AMS does not guarantee that the copy provided here is an accurate copy of the published work.
OpenSky citable URL: ark:/85065/d7kp8368
Publisher's Version: 10.1175/2009WAF2222241.1
  • Christopher Davis - NCAR/UCAR
  • Barbara Brown - NCAR/UCAR
  • Randy Bullock - NCAR/UCAR
  • John Halley-Gotway - NCAR/UCAR
  • Random Profile


    Recent & Upcoming Visitors