Note: HRES and Ensemble Control Forecast (ex-HRES) are scientifically, structurally and computationally identical. With effect from Cy49r1, Ensemble Control Forecast (ex-HRES) output is equivalent to HRES output where shown in the diagrams. At the time of the diagrams, HRES had resolution of 9km and ensemble members had a resolution of 18km.
Vertical profiles window supplements the tools already available (Probe, Time-series, Cities, EPSgram) on ecCharts and elsewhere. It provides information about the vertical structure of the forecast model atmosphere for any location (as selected by the Probe Tool) and any time (as selected by the Time Navigator). Currently validity times are limited to 6 hour steps up to T+120.
There are 137 model levels for medium range ensemble members and the Ensemble Control Forecast. Every model level is used in the lower troposphere up to about 700mb, and only every other level higher up.
Fig8.1.8-1: To display Vertical Profile.
A single display comprises the following elements:
Temperature, Dewpoint and Dewpoint Depression on (most) model levels
Fig8.1.8-2: An example of ecCharts vertical profile output. Note: The diagram is output from Cy48r when the resolution of HRES (~9km) differed from the resolution of medium range ensemble (~18km) and so HRES and Ensemble Control Forecast differ. With effect from Cy49r1, HRES and Ensemble Control Forecast (ex-HRES) are scientifically, structurally and computationally identical and their results are a single trace on the vertical profile.
Fig8.1.8-3: Magnified portion of Fig8.1.8-2 showing the possible overlap between temperatures and dewpoints among the ensemble members. At some levels (here 860hPa taken for illustration) some ensemble members forecast dew points are higher than the temperature forecast by other ensemble members. The dew point depression is 0C-20C, to enable the user to see moist environments in more detail.
Note: The diagram is output from Cy48r when the resolution of HRES (~9km) differed from the resolution of medium range ensemble (~18km) and so HRES and Ensemble Control Forecast differ. With effect from Cy49r1, HRES and Ensemble Control Forecast (ex-HRES) are scientifically, structurally and computationally identical and their results are a single trace on the vertical profile.
The vertical profile uses every model level in the lower troposphere up to about 700mb, and every other level at higher levels. The model levels from each ensemble member are all set to the ensemble mean pressure values before the spread metrics (e.g. 25th and 75th percentiles etc) are computed.
Horizontal Winds on Pressure levels
Fig8.1.8-4: An example of ensemble and winds plotted as hodographs. Depending on the case, these can be very informative (e.g. the consistency of significant shear among ensemble members). This example shows significant shear from SE'ly winds at low levels to SW'ly winds at mid-tropospheric levels to W'ly winds in the upper troposphere.
The MUCAPE and MUCIN diagram shows the distribution of the most unstable Convective Available Potential Energy (MUCAPE) for three different categories of Convective Inhibition (MUCIN) in box and whisker format.
Fig8.1.8-5: An example of box and whisker plot of the distribution among ensemble members of MUCIN and MUCAPE.
These diagrams indicate the variation among ensemble members of the intensity of convection that may occur (MUCAPE) together with the likelihood of attaining the release of that convection (i.e. overcoming MUCIN). Three arbitrary ranges of MUCIN are shown: MUCIN <50J/kg representing a fairly low energy requirement before release of convection, MUCIN >200J/kg representing a more substantial energy requirement, and an intermediate value range of MUCIN. The vertical scale shows the MUCAPE energy in J/kg if convection is released. Box and whisker symbols have their normal meanings. Black filled circles are shown where there are five or fewer ensemble members where convection is released. The numbers of ensemble members within each MUCIN category are given at the top of each column. The number of members without release of MUCAPE is shown in the top right hand corner (e.g. MUCAPE=0: 13 meaning 13 ensemble members failed to identify any MUCAPE in the forecast ensemble ascent).
Note: At present these diagrams are annotated as CIN but should be shown as MUCIN as shown above in Fig:8.1.8-5. This will be corrected on output in the near future.
It should be remembered that the MUCIN and MUCAPE values indicated are diagnostic. The diagrams show the general state of the model atmosphere as forecast for that time. MUCIN does not indicate whether convective instability will be released, but rather provides an indication of the potential for that release. It is important the user to assesses the likelihood of MUCIN values being overcome during the following hours, either by diurnal heating, by dynamically induced uplift of the airmass, or by mechanical uplift caused by flow over mountains etc.
In principle, MUCIN, the convective inhibition, can be computed from any model level. In practice the temperature structure of the forecast atmosphere is scanned in the vertical, working out what MUCIN is for parcels rising from each level, and then the minimum of the values that correspond to levels in the lowest 350hPa of the atmosphere is stored in MARS (and used in ecCharts etc.). Conceptually, MUCIN is always zero or a positive value. However in practice where the parcel curve (from any of the levels tested) never even reaches the environment curve (i.e. it lies always to the left of it) then MUCIN is in effect infinite. Infinite values of MUCIN is stored as a missing value indicator whenever the (minimum) MUCIN encountered exceeds a pre-defined very large threshold (e.g. in strong inversions).
MUCAPE is different in that it is bounded between 0 and some large, non-infinite, value that depends on atmospheric structure. So MUCAPE is stored in a different manner that does not include missing values.
Fig8.1.8-6: Vertical profile at Mao (Mahon), Menorca, Spain (arrowed) with MUCIN and MUCAPE, all from ecCharts: T+108 VT 18UTC 12 Aug 2020, DT 00UTC 8 Aug 2020.
Note: The diagram is output from Cy48r when the resolution of HRES (~9km) differed from the resolution of medium range ensemble (~18km) and so HRES and Ensemble Control Forecast differ. With effect from Cy49r1, HRES and Ensemble Control Forecast (ex-HRES) are scientifically, structurally and computationally identical and their results are a single trace on the vertical profile.
In Fig8.1.8-6:
In the Vertical Profile:
The spread of temperature and/or dew point temperatures could be due to differences among the ensemble models in:
On the MUCAPE diagram:
In general, there is no apparent relation between MUCIN and MUCAPE:
In this example:
Other cases will of course have different characteristics.
Fig8.1.8-7: A forecast vertical profile for Premuda, Croatia T+90 VT 06UTC 18 Aug 2020, DT 00UTC 14 Aug 2020 . The corresponding ecChart shows the forecast probability for convective precipitation (same model runs).
Note: The diagram is output from Cy48r when the resolution of HRES (~9km) differed from the resolution of medium range ensemble (~18km) and so HRES and Ensemble Control Forecast differ. With effect from Cy49r1, HRES and Ensemble Control Forecast (ex-HRES) are scientifically, structurally and computationally identical and their results are a single trace on the vertical profile.
In the case shown in Fig8.1.8-7 many ensemble members suggest MUCIN can be fairly easily overcome (MUCIN <50J/kg) releasing quite vigorous convection (large MUCAPE values - Ensemble Control Forecast ~3500J/kg, ~3000J/kg). The probability of precipitation chart shows that <35% of ensemble members are producing showers totalling >1mm in the period 00UTC to 06UTC. Nevertheless the MUCIN/MUCAPE diagram suggests that quite active convection with heavier showers has been quite possible during the preceding 6hr period given sufficient energy input to overcome MUCIN - this might be dynamical or mechanical uplift. As this was night time it seems more likely that solar heating during the morning will overcome the MUCIN leading to active convective cells.
It is wise to consider both the probability of convective precipitation charts and the vertical profiles together rather than using either alone to assess the possibility of active convective cells.
Fig8.1.8-8: Sequence of forecast vertical profiles for Brindisi, Italy illustrating the variation in MUCIN and consequent availability of MUCAPE through a full 24h diurnal cycle in which the structure of the atmosphere above the lowest layers remains largely unchanged. Here, for simplicity, MUCIN is defined as: low MUCIN<50J/kg, moderate 50J/kg<MUCIN<200J/kg, large MUCIN>200J/kg.
Note: The diagram is output from Cy48r when the resolution of HRES (~9km) differed from the resolution of medium range ensemble (~18km) and so HRES and Ensemble Control Forecast differ. With effect from Cy49r1, HRES and Ensemble Control Forecast are scientifically, structurally and computationally identical and their results are a single trace on the vertical profile.
In Fig8.1.8-8:
Although this case does not definitively highlight active convection, the hodographs indicate some vertical shear through the model atmosphere which would be conducive to organised deep moist convection if large MUCAPE were available and were released.
Fig8.1.8-9: The ensemble forecast frontal zones from the cyclone database products (example) T+120hr VT:00UTC 22 Aug 2020, DT:00UTC 17 Aug 2020. Inset shows magnified area around Denmark. Animation of cyclone database products allows an assessment of the developing spread and changing intensity of frontal features.
Fig8.1.8-10: An example of forecast vertical profiles in the vicinity of a mobile cold front crossing Denmark, T+120hr VT:00UTC 22 Aug 2020, DT:00UTC 17 Aug 2020. There are a range of forecast positions of the front among the ensemble solutions but HRES (thick solid) and Ensemble Control Forecast (thick dotted) both position the front approximately between Copenhagen and Odense. The East/West section through this zone illustrates the differences in the structure of the model atmospheres, particularly in the spread of the ensemble temperatures and dewpoints. The pale blue colouring approximately encloses the range of ensemble positions for the front.
Note: The diagram is output from Cy48r when the resolution of HRES (~9km) differed from the resolution of medium range ensemble (~18km) and so HRES and Ensemble Control Forecast differ. With effect from Cy49r1, HRES and Ensemble Control Forecast are scientifically, structurally and computationally identical and their results are a single trace on the vertical profile.
In Fig8.1.8-10 the airmasses to the east and west of the frontal zone have some well-marked identifying features:
The remaining vertical profiles illustrate the transition between the air masses through the frontal zone with characteristics of both evident to a greater or less extent depending upon the positioning of the front by each ensemble member.
Some other interesting features can be identified; mostly the HRES and Ensemble Control Forecast runs (single thick lines) are representative of the ensemble, but in some respects they are not - e.g. the control has anomalously warm low level air well ahead of the front (55N 15E).
The ECMWF front spaghetti plot (Fig8.1.8-9) indicates that:
When assessing the timing (and activity) during the passage of a front at a given location it is wise to examine:
Additional Sources of Information
(Note: In older material there may be references to issues that have subsequently been addressed)
Read more information on “Using ECMWF's new ensemble vertical profiles”.
Read about the vertical profile product (P39-44).
(FUG Associated with Cy49r1)