Effects of Synoptic Surveillance on model forecasts for
18 September 2002 0000 UTC
Isidore.
Quicktime movie of AVN DLM wind model
forecast
Quicktime movie of DLM wind data
increment
| TRACK (km) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MODEL | 12 h | 24 h | 36 h | 48 h | 60 h | 72 h | 84 h | 96 h | 108 h | 120 h
|
| AVNN | 15. | 94. | 62. | 46. | 61. | 15. | 85. | 62. | 21. | 53.
| AVNO | 67. | 54. | 22. | 43. | 69. | 53. | 84. | 83. | 89. | 73.
| %IMP | -347% | 43% | 65% | 7% | -13% | -253% | 1% | -34% | -324% | -38%
|
| GFNO | 84. | 176. | 148. | 177. | 301. | 418. | 431. | 488. | 406. | 368.
| GFAL | 33. | 87. | 133. | 94. | 106. | 171. | 215. | 217. | 261. | 460.
| %IMP | 61% | 51% | 10% | 47% | 65% | 59% | 50% | 56% | 36% | -25%
|
| AVNN | -20. | -26. | -34. | -52. | -61. | -54. | -76. | -90. | -89. | -81.
| AVNO | -14. | -23. | -30. | -46. | -56. | -47. | -72. | -85. | -85. | -76.
| %IMP | 30% | 12% | 12% | 12% | 8% | 13% | 5% | 6% | 4% | 6%
| INTENSITY (kt)
| MODEL | 12 h | 24 h | 36 h | 48 h | 60 h | 72 h | 84 h | 96 h | 108 h | 120 h
|
| GFNO | -8. | -16. | -19. | -20. | -20. | -1. | -4. | -19. | 0. | 21.
| GFAL | -1. | 19. | 38. | 23. | 18. | 41. | 18. | 3. | 1. | 6.
| %IMP | 87% | -19% | -100% | -15% | 10% | -4000% | -350% | 84% | und% | 77%
|
| SHNO | -4. | -5. | -5. | -11. | -12. | 5. | -17. | -27. | -28. | -20.
| SHIP | -4. | -5. | -6. | -11. | -13. | 3. | -19. | -29. | -29. | -22.
| %IMP | 0% | 0% | -20% | 0% | -8% | 40% | -12% | -7% | -4% | -10%
|
| DSNO | -4. | -5. | -5. | -11. | -24. | -8. | -30. | -40. | -40. | -54.
| DSHP | -4. | -5. | -6. | -11. | -25. | -8. | -30. | -40. | -41. | -54.
| %IMP | 0% | 0% | -20% | 0% | -4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | -3% | 0%
| | ||||||||||
| 20/2100 UTC 22.0N 84.1W Cabo Frances, Cuba 69 h into the forecast | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MODEL | LAT | LON | TIME | ERROR | LOCATION
|
| AVNN | 21.39 | 83.17 | 53.0 | 117.5 | Punta de Guanal, La Isla de la Juventud, Cuba
| AVAL | 21.44 | 82.90 | 54.0 | 138.6 | Punta de Guanal, La Isla de la Juventud, Cuba
| %IMP | 6% | -18%
|
| GFNO
| GFAL | 21.99 | 84.01 | 58.0 | 9.3 | Cabo Frances, Pinar del Rio, Cuba
| %IMP
|
|
22/2100 UTC 21.3N 89.3W Puerto Telchac, Yucatan, Mexico 117 h into the forecast
| MODEL | LAT | LON | TIME | ERROR | LOCATION
|
| AVNN | 21.28 | 89.78 | 118.5 | 49.7 | Progreso, Yucatan, Mexico
| AVAL | 21.19 | 90.03 | 117.5 | 76.6 | Sisal, Yucatan, Mexico
| %IMP | 33% | -54%
|
| GFNO | 21.23 | 85.19 | 54.0 | 425.6 | Near Cancun, Yucatan, Mexico
| GFAL | 24.00 | 87.00 | 96.0 | 381.6 | North of Yucatan, Peninsula
| %IMP | 67% | 10%
|
|
26/0600 UTC 29.1N 90.3W Just west of Grand Isle, LA 198 h into the forecast
| MODEL | LAT | LON | TIME | ERROR | LOCATION
|
| AVNN | No landfall forecast
| AVAL | No landfall forecast
| %IMP |
|
| GFNO | No landfall forecast
| GFAL | No landfall forecast
| %IMP
| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Figure 1. NCEP 850 - 200 hPa mean wind analysis for 18 September 2002 0000 UTC (Tropical Depression Ten).
Figure 2. Track forecasts for the no dropwindsonde (NO or NN) and the all dropwindsonde (AL) runs for the AVN and GFDL models initialized on 18 September 2002 0000 UTC. The best track is shown in black.
Figure 3. Ensemble perturbation variance at the nominal sampling time 18 September 2002 0000 UTC from the previous day NCEP ensemble forecast. The triangles represent the dropwindsonde locations.
Figure 4. Initial condition differences in the 850 - 200 hPa mean wind between the no and all dropwindsonde cases for 18 September 2002 0000 UTC. The triangles represent the dropwindsonde locations.
