NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
Gerry, I'm really interested in looking at coastal Massachusetts, where indeed the resolution of NAM leaves a bit to be desired. I'm not hard over on NAM -- I'm just wondering how well atmospheric models do with clouds in coastal regions, and I thought I'd look at models and data in IDV to get some intuition (as a more fun prelude to doing a literature review. ;-) -Rich On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Gerald Creager <gerry.creager@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Rich, NAM's on a 3 hour output and the resolution depends on which one you > get. They decimate the original model for a variety of uses. Are you looking > at a whole-CONUS region? Is NAM your model of choice or are there > alternatives, or some leeway in model selection? > > OF the NCEP models, NAM has about the best resolution unless you want to run > something special, at 12 km. That's not necessarily cloud-resolving, though. > The HRRR and RUC have higher resolutions that you can work with, but are > shorter in duration. > > gerry > > Rich Signell wrote: >> >> What would be the best space and time resolution datasets available in >> IDV to compare with "total cloud cover" from a model like NAM? >> > > -- > Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@xxxxxxxx > Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University > Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983 > Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843 > -- Dr. Richard P. Signell (508) 457-2229 USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd. Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598
idvusers archives: