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
