Effects of Synoptic Surveillance on model forecasts for
26 September 2002 0000 UTC
Lili.
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 | 63. | 143. | 224. | 211. | 269. | 282. | 299. | 350. | 470. | 604.
| AVNO | 104. | 217. | 234. | 246. | 325. | 325. | 346. | 325. | 321. | 307.
| %IMP | -65% | -54% | -4% | -17% | -21% | -15% | -16% | 7% | 32% | 51%
|
| GFNO | 140. | 102. | 54. | 206. | 308. | 378. | 433. | 623. | 742. | 863.
| GFAL | 99. | 46. | 106. | 298. | 464. | 548. | 558. | 714. | 850. | 978.
| %IMP | 29% | 55% | -96% | -45% | -51% | -45% | -29% | -15% | -15% | -13%
|
| AVNN | -3. | -5. | -16. | -30. | -27. | -27. | -26. | -34. | -42. | -46.
| AVNO | -1. | -1. | -12. | -24. | -21. | -23. | -22. | -30. | -41. | -48.
| %IMP | 67% | 80% | 25% | 20% | 22% | 15% | 15% | 12% | 2% | -4%
| INTENSITY (kt)
| MODEL | 12 h | 24 h | 36 h | 48 h | 60 h | 72 h | 84 h | 96 h | 108 h | 120 h
|
| GFNO | 13. | 22. | 20. | 10. | 22. | 41. | 44. | 53. | 37. | 4.
| GFAL | 13. | 24. | 24. | 20. | 18. | 18. | 40. | 34. | 18. | 8.
| %IMP | 0% | -10% | -20% | -100% | 18% | 56% | 9% | 36% | 51% | -100%
|
| SHNO | 5. | 7. | 9. | 7. | 16. | 22. | 28. | 24. | 20. | 20.
| SHIP | 6. | 10. | 11. | 8. | 14. | 21. | 25. | 20. | 14. | 11.
| %IMP | -20% | -43% | -22% | -14% | 13% | 5% | 11% | 17% | 30% | 45%
|
| DSNO | 5. | 7. | 9. | 7. | -6. | -7. | -1. | -5. | -9. | -9.
| DSHP | 6. | 10. | 11. | 8. | -6. | -7. | -2. | -7. | -14. | -17.
| %IMP | -20% | -43% | -22% | -14% | 0% | 0% | -100% | -40% | -56% | -89%
| | ||||||||||
| 01/1100 UTC 21.3N 83.0W Isle of Youth, Cuba 107 h into the forecast | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MODEL | LAT | LON | TIME | ERROR | LOCATION
|
| AVNN | 18.13 | 73.97 | 37.5 | 1008.0 | Roche A Bateau, Haiti
| AVAL | 17.94 | 73.90 | 31.0 | 1022.9 | Port Salut, Haiti
| %IMP | -9% | -1%
|
| GFNO | 19.98 | 87.47 | 111.5 | 487.3 | Tulum, Qintana Roo, Mexico
| GFAL | 17.88 | 78.43 | 51.0 | 610.9 | Well offshore Cabo Cruz, Granma, Cuba
| %IMP | -1144% | -25%
|
|
01/1400 UTC 22.1N 84.0W Pinar del Rio, Cuba 110 h into the forecast
| MODEL | LAT | LON | TIME | ERROR | LOCATION
|
| AVNN | 20.07 | 74.58 | 56.0 | 1002.2 | Imias, Guantanamo, Cuba
| AVAL | 20.00 | 74.86 | 51.0 | 976.0 | Tortuguilla, Guantanamo, Cuba
| %IMP | -8% | 3%
|
| GFNO | 19.98 | 87.47 | 111.5 | 430.0 | Tulum, Qintana Roo, Mexico
| GFAL | 18.51 | 81.44 | 73.5 | 479.8 | Well offshore La Isla de la Juventud, Cuba
| %IMP | -2333% | -12% |
|
|
03/1300 UTC 22.1N 84.0W near Intracoastal City, LA 157 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 26 September 2002 0000 UTC (Lili).
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 26 September 2002 0000 UTC. The best track is shown in black.
Figure 3. Ensemble perturbation variance at the nominal sampling time 26 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 26 September 2002 0000 UTC. The triangles represent the dropwindsonde locations.
