ci verification methodology & preliminary results [email protected]

33
CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS [email protected]

Upload: bennett-taylor

Post on 19-Jan-2016

227 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

CI VERIFICATIONMETHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS

[email protected]

Page 2: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

In short:

1. Find observed CI using radar echoes aloft

2. Compare to CI forecasts from UAH and UW

3. Find hits, misses, false alarms4. Preliminary results5. Discussion

Page 3: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

From radar data aloft

1. How observed CI was determined

Page 4: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Observed CI

For verification purposes, need a “truth” field Independent of way in which CI is detected Not tied to “objects”

Based on multi-radar reflectivity at -10C isotherm Reflectivity aloft, associated with graupel

formation Good indication on convection Less contaminated by clutter, biological

echoes The multi-radar reflectivity is QC’ed, but QC is

not perfect

Page 5: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Reflectivity at -10C on 4/4/2011 Approx. 1km resolution over CONUS

Page 6: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Classifying CI

Define convection as: Reflectivity at -10C exceeds 35 dBZ

New convection: Was below 35 dBZ in previous image Images are 5 minutes apart

Done on a pixel-by-pixel basis But allow for growth of ongoing convection

Page 7: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Model verification

The CI detection algorithm is now running realtime Being used to verify NSSL-WRF model

forecasts of CI

Page 8: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Aside: model verification

Probability of CI in one hour very similar But time evolution different

Page 9: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Real time: Image at t0

Page 10: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Real time: Image at t1

Page 11: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Real time: Observed CI

Page 12: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Methodology

Take image at t0 and warp it to align it with the image at t1 Warping limited to a 5 pixel movement Determined by cross-correlation with a

smoothness constraint imposed on it 5 pixels in 5 min 60kmph maximum

movement Then, do a neighborhood search

Pixels above 35 dBZ with no pixel above 35 dBZ within 3km of aligned image is “New Convection”

Page 13: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Example: Image at t0

Page 14: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Example: Image at t1

Page 15: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Example: Image at t0 aligned to t1

Page 16: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Classification

Page 17: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Definition of Observed CI

Computed CI using 4 different distance thresholds: 3 km (as described) 5 km 15 km 25 km

The 15 km threshold means that a new CI pixel would have to be at least 15 km from existing convection to considered new In the HWT, this is what forecasters tended to like What I will use for scoring

Page 18: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Significant cells?

One possible problem is that even one pixel counts as CI So, also tried to look for at least 13 km^2 cells

This will be called ObservedCIv2 Tends to find only significant cells (or cells after

they have grown a little bit). Started doing this after some feedback on this

point Not available for all days Can go back and recompute, but doesn’t seem to

make much difference to final scores

Page 19: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

By finding distance between centroids

2. Comparing Observed to Forecast

Page 20: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Computing distance

Take the ObservedCI, SatCast and UWCI grid points Find contiguous pixels and call it an object Find centroid of those objects

Use storm motion derived from radar echoes and model 500mb wind field

Compute distance between each ObservedCI centroid and each forecast CI centroid

Page 21: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Distance computation

Distance is computed as follows: If observed CI is outside time window of

forecast CI (-15 to +45 min), then dist=MAXDIST

Project forecast CI to time of observed CI Using storm motion field

Compute Euclidean distance in lat-lon degrees

MAXDIST was set to be 100 km Pretty generous

Page 22: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Two ways: Hungarian match and distance

3. Scoring

Page 23: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Scoring: Hungarian Match

Create cost matrix of distance between each pair Observed CI to forecast CI

Find best association for each centroid to minimize global sum-of-distances

Any associated pair is a hit Any unassociated observed CI is a miss Any unassociated forecast CI is a false

alarm

Page 24: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Scoring: Neighborhood Match Consider each observed CI

If there is any forecast CI within MAXDIST, then it is a hit

Otherwise, it is a miss Consider each forecast CI

If there is no observed CI within MAXDIST, then it is a miss

More generous than the Hungarian Match Since multiple forecasts can be verified by

a single observation

Page 25: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Summary of numbers that matter Observed CI:

35 dBZ 5 pixel warp in 5 minutes 15 pixel isolation for new CI

Significant cells area threshold (ObservedCIv2) 13 km^2

Time Window: -15 min to +45 min

Distance threshold: Hits have to be within 100 km

Page 26: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Real time images and daily scores

4. Preliminary results

Page 27: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Real time

Can see ObservedCI, ObservedCIv2, UAH and UWCI algorithms at:

http://wdssii.nssl.noaa.gov/web/wdss2/products/radar/civer.shtml

Page 28: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Example

Page 29: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Verification dataset

Dataset of centroids over Spring experiment is available at:

ftp://ftp.nssl.noaa.gov/users/lakshman/civerification.tgz

Contains: All ObservedCI, SatCast and UWCI centroids ObservedCIv2 for when we started creating

them Results of matching and skill scores by day

Page 30: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Example result for June 10, 2011 UAH

UWCI

These scores are typical

Page 31: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Only significant cells (ObservedCIv2)

UAH

UWCI

Page 32: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

5. Discussion

Page 33: CI VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY & PRELIMINARY RESULTS lakshman@ou.edu

Possible reason for low values Could be a factor of the cirrus mask

Computing scores without taking the mask into account is problematic Because mask is so widespread, most

radar-based CI happens under the mask