Extended Abstract

G3Precipitation for February 2nd, 2010-29120-31100-338060-354020-371-39-66 -64 -62 -60 -58 -560Figure 3: Non hydrostatic High Resolution forecast (left) and Regional ETA model(center ) for February 2 nd , 2010. Observed precipitation on the right.From the 8 months analyzed (summer 2009 and 2010), only those months withhigh precipitation events show discrepancies between models. Studying themonthly totals and comparing to the observations, no significant wet bias(indicating false alarms) stands out for neither model.From the 265 days analyzed only 37 (14% of cases) presented significantdifferences between daily forecasted precipitations. In general these differenceswhere in terms of intensification and in most cases between the categories 40-80mm. Comparing these cases with observations we se that High Resolutionmodel performed significantly better than the Regional Model (25 cases against12 cases), and in terms of location both models have similar skill. Thedifference in intensity for all cases is also shown in Figure 4 (right) where wecan see the highest difference in the 20mm bin, indicating that the Highresolution model might result in wetter forecasts than the Regional model, atleast in the higher precipitation amounts.35Comparison between models (41 cases)25Difference in Precipitation maximum (mm)High res Model - Regional ETA MODELNumber of cases3025201510IntensitySystem Location201510550HR HR/RE REModels0-40 -20 0 20 40 60Figure 4: Graphics showing statistics of the comparison between the twoconfigurations of the ETA model considering only those cases where significantdifference on daily accumulated precipitation or location of systems was observed(subjective and visual selection). On the right, number of cases where Intensity orSystem Location performed better for each model, and on the left difference inmaximum precipitation (High Resolution Model minus Regional ETA/SMN Model) forevery meteorological system present on the selected days.4-355-