ALB IFPS Methodology

1
ALB IFPS Methodology

• David Zaff
• ITO Albany NY

2
ALB IFPS Methodology Through Sept 2002

• 1st draft GFE
• 2nd draft Matrix (the gate keeper)
• All updates done through matrix
• 3rd draft post editing (sparingly) of ZFP (and
  then again) for TRV (for NWR)
• More time is often spent on the matrix than on
  the grids

3
ALB IFPS Methodology Through Sept 2002

• Very few smart tools
• MOS rules (verification is a strong influence)
• No consideration for Elevation
• (again Grids are a 1st draft to zones)

4
ALB IFPS MethodologyThrough Today

• Main emphasis is to bring in awareness
• Explain paradigm shift
• (new flagship product is NDFD/grids/data, not
  text)
• Lots of smart tools
• Examples of EAX ideas
• Examples of WR plans/implementation

5
ALB IFPS MethodologyThrough Today

• Many smart tools
• Some taken from STR (all localized, modified,
  etc)
• others locally developed, none posted to STR
• some forecasters use tools more than others
• Favorites listed to right
• (there are others)

6
ALB IFPS MethodologyToday

• Workstation Eta 5km model to 5km GFE grid
• No downscaling
• Hrly Grids through 36 hrs.
• Great for wind, QPF and sky, OK for T
• There goes our verification stats
• better detail less accuracy
• Learning about smartInit
• Plenty of room application of local knowledge
• At LEAST T and SnowAmt can/should be modified
• Very Little consideration to ISC

7
ALB IFPS MethodologyToday

• Producing daily sample ZFP from GFE formatters
  and comparing against regular ZFP
• Goal demonstrate we dont need the matrix
• Some forecasters are using Daily Forecast Critique

8
ALB IFPS MethodologyBy Oct 1

• Short term
• Present new findings to SUNY Albany and get
  University involvement
• (WsEtas pros/cons
• smartInit)
• Application of local research
• Provide general guidelines for best practices
  (develop methodology!)
• Tim Barkers MatchObsAll analysis system
• (problem we need more observations)
• Get rid of Matrix