Comparison of deterministic forecasts generated by computer models and manual methods

Forecasts from NWP models and human forecasters cannot really be compared, because they have different aims:

 

  

 Fig6.3-1: Typical root mean square error and variability of good (blue) and poor (red) high-resolution NWP models.

A good NWP model represents the whole spectrum of resolvable atmospheric scales throughout the forecast.  Thus errors trend towards a higher level but variability remains fairly constant.
A poor NWP model suffers from a gradual reduction of atmospheric scales through the forecast (due to excessive diffusion or coarse numerical resolution).  Thus errors trend towards those of a forecast using climate alone and the variability decreases.
 

  

 Fig6.3-2: Typical root mean square error and variability of experienced (blue) and naïve (red) forecast practices:

An experienced forecaster or process (blue) disregards or damps less likely synoptic features.  Thus errors tend towards those of a forecast using climate alone and variability reduces.  This is because the less predictable scales are gradually removed.
A naïve forecaster or process (red) just reads off raw output from a good NWP model.  Thus errors tend towards a higher level while variability remains fairly constant.  This is because the forecasts maintain the whole spectrum of resolvable atmospheric scales, whether predictable or not.


In summary, a "Good” deterministic forecast performance cannot be judged with the same yardstick used by NWP modellers, forecasters or end-users.  What looks bad might be good, what looks good might be bad.
If the reduction in categorical forecast errors occurs:

Any “competition” between NWP modellers and forecasters has no relevance outside the meteorological community.  The usefulness of a forecast depends upon both the NWP forecast and human interpretation.



(FUG Associated with Cy49r1)