Preprint Article Version 1 This version is not peer-reviewed

2018 Atmospheric Motion Vector (AMV) Intercomparison Study

Version 1 : Received: 31 July 2019 / Approved: 2 August 2019 / Online: 2 August 2019 (05:44:19 CEST)

How to cite: Santek, D.; Dworak, R.; Nebuda, S.; Wanzong, S.; Borde, R.; Genkova, I.; García-Pereda, J.; Galante Negri, R.; Carranza, M.; Nonaka, K.; Shimoji, K.; Oh, S.M.; Lee, B.; Chung, S.; Daniels, J.; Bresky, W. 2018 Atmospheric Motion Vector (AMV) Intercomparison Study. Preprints 2019, 2019080017 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201908.0017.v1). Santek, D.; Dworak, R.; Nebuda, S.; Wanzong, S.; Borde, R.; Genkova, I.; García-Pereda, J.; Galante Negri, R.; Carranza, M.; Nonaka, K.; Shimoji, K.; Oh, S.M.; Lee, B.; Chung, S.; Daniels, J.; Bresky, W. 2018 Atmospheric Motion Vector (AMV) Intercomparison Study. Preprints 2019, 2019080017 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201908.0017.v1).

Abstract

Atmospheric Motion Vectors (AMVs) calculated by six different institutions (Brazil Center for Weather Prediction and Climate Studies/CPTEC/INPE, European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites/EUMETSAT, Japan Meteorological Agency/JMA, Korea Meteorological Administration/KMA, Unites States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/NOAA and the Satellite Application Facility on Support to Nowcasting/NWCSAF) with JMA’s Himawari-8 satellite data and other common input data are here compared. The comparison is based on two different AMV input datasets, calculated with two different image triplets for 21 July 2016, and the use of a prescribed and a specific configuration. The main results of the study are summarized as follows: (1) the differences in the AMV datasets depend very much on the “AMV height assignment” used and much less on the use of a prescribed or specific configuration; (2) the use of the “Common Quality Indicator (CQI)” has a quantified skill in filtering collocated AMVs for an improved statistical agreement between centers; (3) JMA AMV algorithm has the best overall performance considering all validation metrics, most likely due to its height assignment: “optimal estimation using observed radiance and NWP wind vertical profile”.

Subject Areas

atmospheric motion vectors; AMVs; intercomparison; himawari; CPTEC/INPE; EUMETSAT; JMA; KMA; NOAA; NWCSAF

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.